Government of Gujarat vs SUNITABEN W/O MAHESHBHAI URFE JIGO DAHYABHAI TALPADA — 2400/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(AA). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030031732025
Filing Number
2400/2025
Filing Date
12-Nov-2025
Registration No
2400/2025
Registration Date
12-Nov-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
0518
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SUNITABEN W/O MAHESHBHAI URFE JIGO DAHYABHAI TALPADA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Judegement
The court acquitted the respondent, Sunitaben, of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(b) for allegedly possessing and selling illicit liquor, finding insufficient evidence and lack of credible witness corroboration to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key police witnesses failed to adequately support the prosecution's case, and the exclusive and conscious possession of contraband could not be established against the accused. 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
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
16-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
07-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
01-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
01-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2400/2025
The court acquitted the respondent, Sunitaben, of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(b) for allegedly possessing and selling illicit liquor, finding insufficient evidence and lack of credible witness corroboration to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key police witnesses failed to adequately support the prosecution's case, and the exclusive and conscious possession of contraband could not be established against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts