THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ASHOKBHAI RATILAL CHUNARA — 151/2026

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAH090002332026

Case disposed

Filing Number

151/2026

Filing Date

20-01-2026

Registration No

151/2026

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

11192015251192

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)

ASHOKBHAI RATILAL 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

Summary The court acquitted the accused (Ashoklal Chunara) in Criminal Case No. 151/2026 under IPC Section 65(a)(a), finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to provide credible independent witness testimony—the two panchayat witnesses who testified could not properly support the evidence due to procedural defects, and the accused's cross-examination was not conducted as required under CrPC Section 299 (trial in absence of absconded accused). Consequently, the charges were not substantiated, and the accused was acquitted and discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused (Ashoklal Chunara) in Criminal Case No. 151/2026 under IPC Section 65(a)(a), finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to provide credible independent witness testimony—the two panchayat witnesses who testified could not properly support the evidence due to procedural defects, and the accused's cross-examination was not conducted as required under CrPC Section 299 (trial in absence of absconded accused). Consequently, the charges were not substantiated, and the accused was acquitted and discharged. 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