THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs TEJALBEN KALUBHAI CHUNARA — 119/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH090001972026
Filing Number
119/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Registration No
119/2026
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
11192015251179
Police Station
CHANGDODAR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
TEJALBEN KALUBHAI 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. 119/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Tejalbhen Kalubaai Sunara, of charges under IPC Section 65(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to produce credible independent witnesses to substantiate the allegations, and the two witnesses examined provided testimonies that merely supported the FIR without corroborating evidence. The court found no reliable documentary proof supporting the charge and noted procedural defects, including the accused's absence during trial under CrPC Section 299, making conviction unsafe. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 119/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Tejalbhen Kalubaai Sunara, of charges under IPC Section 65(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to produce credible independent witnesses to substantiate the allegations, and the two witnesses examined provided testimonies that merely supported the FIR without corroborating evidence. The court found no reliable documentary proof supporting the charge and noted procedural defects, including the accused's absence during trial under CrPC Section 299, making conviction unsafe. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts