Government of Gujarat vs RADHABEN WIFE/O ASHOKBHAI BUDHABHAI TALPADA Advocate - P J SAIYED — 1750/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(AA). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030023572025
Filing Number
1750/2025
Filing Date
12-Aug-2025
Registration No
1750/2025
Registration Date
12-Aug-2025
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
0380
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RADHABEN WIFE/O ASHOKBHAI BUDHABHAI TALPADA Advocate - P J SAIYED
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted the respondent Radhaben of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a)(b), finding insufficient evidence of exclusive and conscious possession of alcohol to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key prosecution witnesses failed to corroborate the case and that procedural irregularities undermined the conviction prospects, making continued trial wasteful. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
17-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
20-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
22-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
11-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
28-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1750/2025
The court acquitted the respondent Radhaben of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a)(b), finding insufficient evidence of exclusive and conscious possession of alcohol to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key prosecution witnesses failed to corroborate the case and that procedural irregularities undermined the conviction prospects, making continued trial wasteful. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts