STATE OF GUJARAT vs KHODAJI SHANKARI THAKOR(Abated) Advocate - A.M.SOLANKI — 172/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 467,468,471,420,114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH150001862017
Filing Number
172/2017
Filing Date
18-03-2006
Registration No
172/2017
Registration Date
18-03-2006
Court
Taluka Court, Detroj
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
77
Police Station
DETROJ POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2005
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KHODAJI SHANKARI THAKOR(Abated) Advocate - A.M.SOLANKI
AMBALAL MAGANBHAI VALAND
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 12-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 20-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary In this criminal case CC No. 172-2017, the court acquitted defendant Ambalal Maganlal Waland of charges under IPC sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 114 (forgery, cheating, and abetment) for alleged unauthorized withdrawal of ₹3,99,300 from a cooperative society using forged documents in the names of deceased members. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical deficiencies: original documents were not produced, the deceased complainant could not testify, and no evidence demonstrated the accused actually benefited from the alleged wrongdoing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this criminal case CC No. 172-2017, the court acquitted defendant Ambalal Maganlal Waland of charges under IPC sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 114 (forgery, cheating, and abetment) for alleged unauthorized withdrawal of ₹3,99,300 from a cooperative society using forged documents in the names of deceased members. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical deficiencies: original documents were not produced, the deceased complainant could not testify, and no evidence demonstrated the accused actually benefited from the alleged wrongdoing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts