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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 303(2)

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.

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

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DHARI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case