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
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
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts