THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs HARIBHAI JIVABHAI JAPADIYA Advocate - N M KHASIYA — 127/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)b,85(1). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH230001972025
Filing Number
127/2025
Filing Date
03-06-2025
Registration No
127/2025
Registration Date
03-06-2025
Court
Taluka Court, Dholera
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192019250099
Police Station
DHOLERA POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
HARIBHAI JIVABHAI JAPADIYA Advocate - N M KHASIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 09-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 07-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 03-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of Dholera acquitted the accused, HariBhai Jivabhai Zapdiya, of charges under the Prohibition Act sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical deficiencies: the panchnama witness lacked independence (being a police GRD employee), the complainant and investigating officer were the same person compromising impartiality, and mandatory procedures under the Gujarat Prohibition Rules 1959 were violated regarding blood sample collection. The benefit of doubt went to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of Dholera acquitted the accused, HariBhai Jivabhai Zapdiya, of charges under the Prohibition Act sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical deficiencies: the panchnama witness lacked independence (being a police GRD employee), the complainant and investigating officer were the same person compromising impartiality, and mandatory procedures under the Gujarat Prohibition Rules 1959 were violated regarding blood sample collection. The benefit of doubt went to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts