Government of Gujarat vs BHUPATBHAI JAGUBHAI VALA Advocate - S S JAM — 710/2024
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 303(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAM030011452024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
710/2024
Filing Date
01-10-2024
Registration No
710/2024
Registration Date
01-10-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHARI
Judge
2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11193018240416
Police Station
DHARI POLICE STATION - AMRELI DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BHUPATBHAI JAGUBHAI VALA Advocate - S S JAM
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 23-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 10-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 29-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Dhari acquitted the accused, Bhuptbhai Jugubhai Vala, of the theft charge under IPC Section 303(2). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's witnesses—including the panchas (notaries) who recorded the recovery of the motorcycle—did not corroborate the complaint's allegations. The court ruled that mere recovery of the vehicle from the accused without conclusive evidence of theft was insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Dhari acquitted the accused, Bhuptbhai Jugubhai Vala, of the theft charge under IPC Section 303(2). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's witnesses—including the panchas (notaries) who recorded the recovery of the motorcycle—did not corroborate the complaint's allegations. The court ruled that mere recovery of the vehicle from the accused without conclusive evidence of theft was insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts