Government of Gujarat vs MANJULABEN W/O JAYANTIBHAI SHANABHAI TALPADA — 384/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 26th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030005152026
Filing Number
384/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
384/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PETLAD
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
Decision Date
26-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11215021250638
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MANJULABEN W/O JAYANTIBHAI SHANABHAI TALPADA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary of Case 384/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Manjulaben, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the seizure of 0.4 liters of alcohol, as the witness testimonies lacked corroboration and critical procedural requirements were not satisfied. The court applied cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing that suspicion alone cannot substitute legal proof and that the burden remains on prosecution throughout. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-May-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
22-May-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
22-Apr-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
30-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
17-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 384/2026
Summary of Case 384/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Manjulaben, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the seizure of 0.4 liters of alcohol, as the witness testimonies lacked corroboration and critical procedural requirements were not satisfied. The court applied cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing that suspicion alone cannot substitute legal proof and that the burden remains on prosecution throughout. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts