THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs GULABBEN NAVINBHAI DEVIPUJAK — 101/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH090001792026
Filing Number
101/2026
Filing Date
20-Jan-2026
Registration No
101/2026
Registration Date
20-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, SANAND
Judge
3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 15-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192015251175
Police Station
CHANGDODAR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.GULABBEN NAVINBHAI DEVIPUJAK
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary: The court acquitted the accused, Gulab Navinbhai Devipujak, of charges under IPC Section 65(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to provide any independent witnesses or credible documentary evidence to prove the allegations against the accused, and the court found that the testimony of the two witnesses examined could not substantiate the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court exercised its authority under CrPC Section 299 to record evidence in the accused's absence (as he absconded), but determined the evidence on record was inadequate to convict him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Mar-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 101/2026
Summary: The court acquitted the accused, Gulab Navinbhai Devipujak, of charges under IPC Section 65(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to provide any independent witnesses or credible documentary evidence to prove the allegations against the accused, and the court found that the testimony of the two witnesses examined could not substantiate the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court exercised its authority under CrPC Section 299 to record evidence in the accused's absence (as he absconded), but determined the evidence on record was inadequate to convict him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts