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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSN170012772025

Filing Number

927/2025

Filing Date

19-Nov-2025

Registration No

927/2025

Registration Date

19-Nov-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT-THANGADH

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 15-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MUNABHAI DANABHAI PARGHI Advocate - J D CHAVDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    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.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 07-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 27-Jan-2026

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 13-Jan-2026

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 19-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 19-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 927/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case