THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MANISHBEN VIPULBHAI CHUNARA — 128/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH090002072026
Filing Number
128/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Registration No
128/2026
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
11192015251176
Police Station
CHANGDODAR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
MANISHBEN VIPULBHAI 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
Court Decision Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 128/2026 | Court: Magistrate First Class, Sanatand, Amdavad (Gujarat) Decision: The court acquitted the accused Manishaban Vipulbhai Chunara of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a). The prosecution failed to prove its case due to critical deficiencies: the two panchas (witnesses) who allegedly observed the seizure of illicit liquor did not support the prosecution's case, refused to endorse the panchnama (seizure document), and claimed no knowledge of the incident. The court found the investigation procedure tainted and lacking credible evidence establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 128/2026 | Court: Magistrate First Class, Sanatand, Amdavad (Gujarat) Decision: The court acquitted the accused Manishaban Vipulbhai Chunara of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a). The prosecution failed to prove its case due to critical deficiencies: the two panchas (witnesses) who allegedly observed the seizure of illicit liquor did not support the prosecution's case, refused to endorse the panchnama (seizure document), and claimed no knowledge of the incident. The court found the investigation procedure tainted and lacking credible evidence establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts