Government of Gujarat vs HAKABHAI KANUBHAI PARGHI Advocate - R S SOLANKI — 929/2025
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSN170012792025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
929/2025
Filing Date
19-11-2025
Registration No
929/2025
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)
HAKABHAI KANUBHAI PARGHI Advocate - R S SOLANKI
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
Case Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thangadh acquitted the accused Hakabhai Kanubhai Parghi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband liquor (3 liters valued at Rs. 600) was recovered from the accused's direct possession on October 3, 2024. Key Reasoning: The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchas (witnesses) who conducted the search could not corroborate the seizure details, no independent witnesses testified, and crucially, no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report confirmed the seized material was actually alcohol. The lack of forensic evidence and weak witness testimonies meant the prosecution could not establish the charge with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thangadh acquitted the accused Hakabhai Kanubhai Parghi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband liquor (3 liters valued at Rs. 600) was recovered from the accused's direct possession on October 3, 2024. Key Reasoning: The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchas (witnesses) who conducted the search could not corroborate the seizure details, no independent witnesses testified, and crucially, no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report confirmed the seized material was actually alcohol. The lack of forensic evidence and weak witness testimonies meant the prosecution could not establish the charge with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts