Government of Gujarat vs DIXIT URFE BHAGO AMITBHAI THAKOR — 145/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030002012026
Filing Number
145/2026
Filing Date
29-Jan-2026
Registration No
145/2026
Registration Date
29-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
11215021250593
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.DIXIT URFE BHAGO AMITBHAI THAKOR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary of Case 145/2026 The court acquitted the respondent Dixit Urfe Bhago Amitbhai Thakor of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act §65(a)(a), §116(b) for illegal possession of foreign liquor (McDowells whisky). The court found the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key prosecution witnesses did not adequately support the charges and the seizure procedure was questionable. The court held that exclusive and conscious possession of contraband could not be proven, warranting acquittal. 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
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
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
-
29-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 145/2026
Summary of Case 145/2026 The court acquitted the respondent Dixit Urfe Bhago Amitbhai Thakor of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act §65(a)(a), §116(b) for illegal possession of foreign liquor (McDowells whisky). The court found the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key prosecution witnesses did not adequately support the charges and the seizure procedure was questionable. The court held that exclusive and conscious possession of contraband could not be proven, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts