THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs GULABBEN DILIPBHAI CHUNARA — 110/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH090001882026
Filing Number
110/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Registration No
110/2026
Registration Date
20-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, SANAND
Judge
3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192015251326
Police Station
CHANGDODAR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
GULABBEN DILIPBHAI CHUNARA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 03-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 23-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 110/2026 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Gulabben Dilipbhai Chunara, of charges under IPC Section 45(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as no independent witness testimony supported the allegations, and the accused remained absent throughout proceedings under CrPC Section 299. Key Reasoning: The court found that while two panchayat witnesses testified, their evidence lacked corroboration and failed to establish the accused's guilt conclusively. The absence of the accused during trial prevented proper cross-examination of witnesses, making conviction legally unsafe under criminal procedure principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 110/2026 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Gulabben Dilipbhai Chunara, of charges under IPC Section 45(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as no independent witness testimony supported the allegations, and the accused remained absent throughout proceedings under CrPC Section 299. Key Reasoning: The court found that while two panchayat witnesses testified, their evidence lacked corroboration and failed to establish the accused's guilt conclusively. The absence of the accused during trial prevented proper cross-examination of witnesses, making conviction legally unsafe under criminal procedure principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts