Government of Gujarat vs CHAMPABEN W/O ISHVARBHAI CHHOTABHAI TALPADA — 188/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAN030002522026

Filing Number

188/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

188/2026

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

11215021250476

Police Station

PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

1.Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

1.CHAMPABEN W/O ISHVARBHAI CHHOTABHAI TALPADA

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
18-Apr-2026

JudegementView PDF

The court acquitted the respondent Champaben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(b) for alleged possession of 2 liters of plastic-bottled country liquor valued at ₹400. The court found insufficient evidence—key prosecution witnesses (panchas) failed to support the case, evidence of exclusive possession was lacking, and the investigation procedure was questionable, making conviction impossible beyond reasonable doubt. 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

Process To Accused

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
17-Mar-2026

Process To Accused

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
16-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
02-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 188/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the respondent Champaben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(b) for alleged possession of 2 liters of plastic-bottled country liquor valued at ₹400. The court found insufficient evidence—key prosecution witnesses (panchas) failed to support the case, evidence of exclusive possession was lacking, and the investigation procedure was questionable, making conviction impossible beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.