THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRADIPBHAI VALABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - N M KHASIYA — 511/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a),65(e),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 29th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAH230006912025

Case disposed

Filing Number

511/2025

Filing Date

22-12-2025

Registration No

511/2025

Registration Date

22-12-2025

Court

Taluka Court, Dholera

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

29th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11192019250301

Police Station

DHOLERA POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a),65(e),81

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

PRADIPBHAI VALABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - N M KHASIYA

MOBUBHAI MADHUBHAI VEDVA

Adv. N M KHASIYA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

29-04-2026

Disposed

18-04-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

04-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

11-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

09-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

29-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Court Decision Summary The Dholera Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted both accused persons (Pradipbhai Valabhai Wadhela and Mobubhai Madhubhai Vedva) of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(I) and 81, citing insufficient evidence. The court found critical gaps in the prosecution's case: absence of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) reports confirming the seized liquor, lack of independent witness corroboration of the raid, failure to recover contraband directly from the accused, and procedural irregularities in seizure documentation. The accused benefited from the doubt and were discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Dholera Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted both accused persons (Pradipbhai Valabhai Wadhela and Mobubhai Madhubhai Vedva) of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(I) and 81, citing insufficient evidence. The court found critical gaps in the prosecution's case: absence of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) reports confirming the seized liquor, lack of independent witness corroboration of the raid, failure to recover contraband directly from the accused, and procedural irregularities in seizure documentation. The accused benefited from the doubt and were discharged. 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