Government of Gujarat vs PURANSING S/O LAXMANSING GOPALSING RATHOD Advocate - D.K.PARMAR — 117/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379,285,114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSN030004062020
Filing Number
117/2020
Filing Date
12-Mar-2020
Registration No
117/2020
Registration Date
12-Mar-2020
Court
TALUKA COURT, LIMBDI
Judge
22-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
09-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
60
Police Station
LIMBDI POLICE STATION - SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.PURANSING S/O LAXMANSING GOPALSING RATHOD Advocate - D.K.PARMAR
-
2.GAJENDRASING S/O RATANSING FOJSING RATHOD
-
3.GIRIRAJSINH @ GAMBHIRSINH JILUBHA ZALA (Dead)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Apr-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: CC No. 117/2020 Court Decision: The court acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 under IPC Sections 379, 285, and 114 of charges that they stole approximately 600 liters of diesel worth ₹41,400 on November 19, 2019. The prosecution failed to prove the theft charges beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient credible evidence. Key Reasoning: While police recovered diesel and related materials from the accused's possession, the witnesses (panchs) provided no substantive corroboration of the alleged theft. Critical gaps existed regarding proof of ownership of the seized diesel, absence of evidence that the accused actually stole it from vehicles, and the fluidity of the seized material made preservation difficult. The court found that suspicion alone cannot replace proof in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
01-Apr-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Mar-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
01-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
07-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
08-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
30-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
15-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
30-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
13-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
17-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
21-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
03-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
13-May-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
22-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
17-Mar-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
17-Feb-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
27-Jan-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
16-Dec-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
26-Nov-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
22-Oct-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
07-Oct-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
17-Sep-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Aug-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
03-Aug-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
30-Jul-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
09-Jul-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
24-Jun-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
03-Jun-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-May-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
22-Apr-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
02-Apr-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
11-Mar-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
19-Feb-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
23-Jan-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
02-Jan-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
28-Nov-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
17-Oct-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
25-Sep-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
28-Aug-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
17-Jul-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Jun-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
09-May-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
11-Apr-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
07-Mar-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
07-Feb-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
10-Jan-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
13-Dec-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
15-Nov-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Oct-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
06-Sep-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
02-Aug-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
28-Jun-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
27-May-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
10-May-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
05-Apr-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
08-Mar-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
25-Jan-2022
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
21-Dec-2021
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
23-Nov-2021
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
05-Oct-2021
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
24-Aug-2021
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
26-Jul-2021
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
05-Jul-2021
Plea
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
26-Apr-2021
Plea
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
15-Mar-2021
Plea
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
25-Jan-2021
Plea
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Dec-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
06-Nov-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Sep-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
24-Aug-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
11-Aug-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
29-Jul-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
16-Jul-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Jul-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
23-Jun-2020
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
28-Apr-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Mar-2020
Case filed
Registration No. 117/2020
Case Summary: CC No. 117/2020 Court Decision: The court acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 under IPC Sections 379, 285, and 114 of charges that they stole approximately 600 liters of diesel worth ₹41,400 on November 19, 2019. The prosecution failed to prove the theft charges beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient credible evidence. Key Reasoning: While police recovered diesel and related materials from the accused's possession, the witnesses (panchs) provided no substantive corroboration of the alleged theft. Critical gaps existed regarding proof of ownership of the seized diesel, absence of evidence that the accused actually stole it from vehicles, and the fluidity of the seized material made preservation difficult. The court found that suspicion alone cannot replace proof in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts