THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MADHIBEN SHAMBHUBHAI CHUNARA — 121/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAH090001992026

Case disposed

Filing Number

121/2026

Filing Date

20-01-2026

Registration No

121/2026

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

11192015251178

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)

MADHIBEN SHAMBHUBHAI 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 Case: Criminal Case No. 121/2026, Sanad Court, Amdavad Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Madhiben Shambubhai Chunara, of charges under IPC Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses or credible documentary evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused's cross-examination could not be conducted due to his absence under CrPC Section 299. Key Reasoning: The court found that while prosecution witnesses were examined, their testimony alone could not sustain conviction without corroborating evidence, and no incriminating material was produced on record to establish the accused's guilt conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 121/2026, Sanad Court, Amdavad Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Madhiben Shambubhai Chunara, of charges under IPC Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses or credible documentary evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused's cross-examination could not be conducted due to his absence under CrPC Section 299. Key Reasoning: The court found that while prosecution witnesses were examined, their testimony alone could not sustain conviction without corroborating evidence, and no incriminating material was produced on record to establish the accused's guilt conclusively. 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