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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

GULABBEN DILIPBHAI CHUNARA

Hearing History

Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

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

30-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SANAND All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case