Government of Gujarat vs Avdhesh parag pal Advocate - A P SHAH — 1212/2018

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 407,120,34,411. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR050015252018

Filing Number

1222/2018

Filing Date

27-Dec-2018

Registration No

1212/2018

Registration Date

27-Dec-2018

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANGROL

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

169

Police Station

KOSAMBA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 407,120,34,411

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Avdhesh parag pal Advocate - A P SHAH

  2. 2.Gulam nawabKha

    Adv. CRPC-

  3. 3.Jagdish nainadas brahman

    Adv. CRPC-

  4. 4.Harun mahmad malla

    Adv. A P SHAH

  5. 5.Jitendra @ jitu jayantibhai korat

    Adv. A P SHAH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 1212/2018 Court Decision: The court acquitted all accused persons of charges under IPC Sections 407, 120(B), 34, and 411, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Key Facts: The prosecution alleged that on 28/09/2018, the accused conspired to steal approximately 320 liters of Styrene Monomer chemical (worth Rs. 32,000) from a tanker (GJ-12-BT-1383) that was being transported from Hazira port to Vadodara. The chemical was allegedly diverted and sold illegally. Court's Reasoning: While the court acknowledged that chemical materials were seized and some witnesses testified about the incident, the prosecution failed to establish conclusively that the accused committed the alleged theft. Key evidentiary gaps included: lack of proper documentation linking the seized materials to the accused, inconsistent witness statements under cross-examination, and insufficient proof regarding the ownership and value of seized property. The court found the prosecution's case lacked the requisite certainty to sustain conviction under the serious charges leveled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 03-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 07-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 27-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 13-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 02-Jan-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 19-Dec-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 03-Dec-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 18-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 04-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 14-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 04-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 04-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 21-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 11-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 29-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 17-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  23. 07-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  24. 04-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  25. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  26. 06-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  27. 22-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  28. 08-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  29. 23-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  30. 07-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  31. 17-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  32. 21-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  33. 10-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  34. 23-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  35. 03-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  36. 13-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  37. 02-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  38. 13-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  39. 16-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  40. 24-Sep-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  41. 04-Sep-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  42. 09-Aug-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  43. 28-Jun-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  44. 03-Jun-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  45. 01-Apr-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  46. 05-Feb-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  47. 02-Jan-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  48. 21-Nov-2023

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  49. 10-Oct-2023

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  50. 11-Sep-2023

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  51. 31-Jul-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  52. 27-Jun-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  53. 23-May-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  54. 27-Apr-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  55. 21-Mar-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  56. 27-Feb-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  57. 23-Jan-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  58. 23-Dec-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  59. 08-Dec-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  60. 17-Oct-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  61. 14-Sep-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  62. 27-Jul-2022

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  63. 17-Jun-2022

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  64. 05-May-2022

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  65. 16-Mar-2022

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  66. 18-Jan-2022

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  67. 24-Nov-2021

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  68. 02-Sep-2021

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  69. 08-Jul-2021

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  70. 15-Apr-2021

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  71. 20-Jan-2021

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  72. 28-Oct-2020

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  73. 29-Jul-2020

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  74. 04-Jun-2020

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  75. 29-Apr-2020

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  76. 28-Feb-2020

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  77. 26-Dec-2019

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  78. 09-Oct-2019

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  79. 09-Aug-2019

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  80. 10-Jul-2019

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  81. 20-May-2019

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  82. 04-Apr-2019

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  83. 27-Feb-2019

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  84. 27-Dec-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  85. 27-Dec-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1212/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1212/2018 Court Decision: The court acquitted all accused persons of charges under IPC Sections 407, 120(B), 34, and 411, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Key Facts: The prosecution alleged that on 28/09/2018, the accused conspired to steal approximately 320 liters of Styrene Monomer chemical (worth Rs. 32,000) from a tanker (GJ-12-BT-1383) that was being transported from Hazira port to Vadodara. The chemical was allegedly diverted and sold illegally. Court's Reasoning: While the court acknowledged that chemical materials were seized and some witnesses testified about the incident, the prosecution failed to establish conclusively that the accused committed the alleged theft. Key evidentiary gaps included: lack of proper documentation linking the seized materials to the accused, inconsistent witness statements under cross-examination, and insufficient proof regarding the ownership and value of seized property. The court found the prosecution's case lacked the requisite certainty to sustain conviction under the serious charges leveled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case