Government of Gujarat vs MEENABEN WIDOW OF ISHVARBHAI HIRABHAI TALPADA — 187/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 18th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030002512026
Filing Number
187/2026
Filing Date
02-Feb-2026
Registration No
187/2026
Registration Date
02-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PETLAD
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
Decision Date
18-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11215021250583
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MEENABEN WIDOW OF ISHVARBHAI HIRABHAI TALPADA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Apr-2026
Judegement
SUMMARY The court acquitted the respondent (Meenaben) of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for alleged unauthorized possession and sale of liquor. The court found that key prosecution witnesses failed to support the case, insufficient evidence established the respondent's exclusive possession of the contraband, and procedural irregularities undermined the investigation's credibility. Applying the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, the court determined conviction was not warranted and discharged the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
30-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
17-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
25-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
16-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 187/2026
SUMMARY The court acquitted the respondent (Meenaben) of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for alleged unauthorized possession and sale of liquor. The court found that key prosecution witnesses failed to support the case, insufficient evidence established the respondent's exclusive possession of the contraband, and procedural irregularities undermined the investigation's credibility. Applying the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, the court determined conviction was not warranted and discharged the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts