Government of Gujarat vs TARUNBHAI BHUPENDRABHAI LAVANTRA — 118/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030001732026
Filing Number
118/2026
Filing Date
28-Jan-2026
Registration No
118/2026
Registration Date
28-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PETLAD
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11215021250414
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.TARUNBHAI BHUPENDRABHAI LAVANTRA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Tarunbhai Bhupendrabhai Lavantra (C.C. 118/2026) The court acquitted the defendant of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(1)(a) and (b) for possessing foreign liquor (Orange Hill Vodka). The court found that prosecution witnesses, particularly the panchas (official witnesses), failed to support the case adequately, and the "exclusive and conscious possession" required for conviction could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that without credible witness support and given the weak evidence, continuing the trial would waste judicial time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
17-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
28-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
16-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 118/2026
Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Tarunbhai Bhupendrabhai Lavantra (C.C. 118/2026) The court acquitted the defendant of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(1)(a) and (b) for possessing foreign liquor (Orange Hill Vodka). The court found that prosecution witnesses, particularly the panchas (official witnesses), failed to support the case adequately, and the "exclusive and conscious possession" required for conviction could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that without credible witness support and given the weak evidence, continuing the trial would waste judicial time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts