Government of Gujarat vs RAMILABEN W/O VASUBHAI SHIVABHAI TALPADA — 385/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAN030005162026

Filing Number

385/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

385/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-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

11215021250682

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.RAMILABEN W/O VASUBHAI SHIVABHAI TALPADA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted the respondent Ramilaben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for allegedly possessing 2 liters of plastic-bottled alcohol worth ₹400. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt—key witnesses (the five panchas/neutral observers) did not support the investigation findings, the chain of custody was questionable, and the exclusive and conscious possession required for conviction was not proven. The court held that without substantial corroborating evidence, merely relying on police testimony was insufficient for conviction. 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

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 385/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the respondent Ramilaben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for allegedly possessing 2 liters of plastic-bottled alcohol worth ₹400. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt—key witnesses (the five panchas/neutral observers) did not support the investigation findings, the chain of custody was questionable, and the exclusive and conscious possession required for conviction was not proven. The court held that without substantial corroborating evidence, merely relying on police testimony was insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case