Government of Gujarat vs VIMLABEN W/O BABUBHAI PUNAMBHAI VAGHARI — 2433/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030032182025
Filing Number
2433/2025
Filing Date
17-Nov-2025
Registration No
2433/2025
Registration Date
17-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
0564
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.VIMLABEN W/O BABUBHAI PUNAMBHAI VAGHARI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: CC No. 2433/2025 The court acquitted the respondent Vimlaben of charges under Gujarat POCSO Act Section 5(p)(a) for allegedly possessing narcotic drugs, finding insufficient evidence of exclusive and conscious possession. The court noted that key witnesses failed to support the prosecution's case, and the recovery procedure was questionable, making conviction impossible beyond reasonable doubt. The court ordered the destruction of seized substances and imposed a six-month sentence under CrPC Section 437(a) for unrelated charges. 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
-
09-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
02-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
01-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2433/2025
Case Summary: CC No. 2433/2025 The court acquitted the respondent Vimlaben of charges under Gujarat POCSO Act Section 5(p)(a) for allegedly possessing narcotic drugs, finding insufficient evidence of exclusive and conscious possession. The court noted that key witnesses failed to support the prosecution's case, and the recovery procedure was questionable, making conviction impossible beyond reasonable doubt. The court ordered the destruction of seized substances and imposed a six-month sentence under CrPC Section 437(a) for unrelated charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts