THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AMITBHAI MIRKHANBHAI GAMAR Advocate - R A PARMAR — 8/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65 AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSK190000102026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

8/2026

Filing Date

08-01-2026

Registration No

8/2026

Registration Date

08-01-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, POSHINA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

FIR Details

FIR Number

528

Police Station

Kheroj Police Station, Poshina

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65 AA

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

AMITBHAI MIRKHANBHAI GAMAR Advocate - R A PARMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

01-04-2026

Disposed

24-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

07-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

02-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

19-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
JUDGMENT

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Poshina (Sabarkantha district) acquitted the accused Amitbhai Mirkhanbhai Gamaar of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A) on April 1, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the key witnesses (panchas) who conducted the seizure proceedings did not corroborate the seizure details, and the complainant could not establish the accused's exclusive and conscious possession of the seized alcohol bottle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Poshina (Sabarkantha district) acquitted the accused Amitbhai Mirkhanbhai Gamaar of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A) on April 1, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the key witnesses (panchas) who conducted the seizure proceedings did not corroborate the seizure details, and the complainant could not establish the accused's exclusive and conscious possession of the seized alcohol bottle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, POSHINA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case