Government of Gujarat vs DHANIBEN W/O RAMANBHAI MANIBHAI TALPADA — 191/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAN030002552026

Filing Number

191/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

191/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-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

11215021250643

Police Station

PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DHANIBEN W/O RAMANBHAI MANIBHAI TALPADA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    The court acquitted the accused of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(b) due to insufficient evidence. Key witnesses failed to support the prosecution's case, and the court found the evidence of possession lacked the required "exclusive and conscious possession" standard to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 191/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(b) due to insufficient evidence. Key witnesses failed to support the prosecution's case, and the court found the evidence of possession lacked the required "exclusive and conscious possession" standard to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case