Government of Gujarat vs SAHILKHAN FARIDKHAN PATHAN — 120/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030001752026
Filing Number
120/2026
Filing Date
28-Jan-2026
Registration No
120/2026
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
11215021250681
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SAHILKHAN FARIDKHAN PATHAN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: Case 120/2026 Government of Gujarat v. Sahilkhan Faridkhan Pathan The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a)(a), 116(b) for illegal possession of foreign liquor (Blue Stroke Exquisite Whisky). The court found that key prosecution witnesses, particularly the five panchas (independent observers), failed to adequately support the case, with the main pancha providing no corroboration. The court held that without credible witness testimony establishing exclusive and conscious possession "beyond reasonable doubt," conviction was not warranted, and further trial would waste judicial time with no prospect of conviction. 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. 120/2026
Case Summary: Case 120/2026 Government of Gujarat v. Sahilkhan Faridkhan Pathan The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a)(a), 116(b) for illegal possession of foreign liquor (Blue Stroke Exquisite Whisky). The court found that key prosecution witnesses, particularly the five panchas (independent observers), failed to adequately support the case, with the main pancha providing no corroboration. The court held that without credible witness testimony establishing exclusive and conscious possession "beyond reasonable doubt," conviction was not warranted, and further trial would waste judicial time with no prospect of conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts