Government of Gujarat vs MUNABHAI DANABHAI PARGHI Advocate - J D CHAVDA — 927/2025
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSN170012772025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
927/2025
Filing Date
19-11-2025
Registration No
927/2025
Registration Date
19-11-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-THANGADH
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
MUNABHAI DANABHAI PARGHI Advocate - J D CHAVDA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PLEA
PLEA
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 20-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 07-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 27-01-2026 | PLEA | |
| 13-01-2026 | PLEA |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Thangadh Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Munabhai Danabhai Parghi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized alcohol was in his direct possession. The court noted that independent panchas (witnesses) could not corroborate the recovery details, no FSL report confirmed the substance was alcohol, and the prosecution's case relied solely on police testimony without sufficient independent evidence, warranting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Thangadh Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Munabhai Danabhai Parghi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized alcohol was in his direct possession. The court noted that independent panchas (witnesses) could not corroborate the recovery details, no FSL report confirmed the substance was alcohol, and the prosecution's case relied solely on police testimony without sufficient independent evidence, warranting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts