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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 66(1)b,85(1)

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

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

18-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Taluka Court, Dholera All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case