Government of Gujarat vs MANJULABEN W/O ISHWARBHAI BALUBHAI TALPADA — 2437/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 18th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030032222025
Filing Number
2437/2025
Filing Date
17-Nov-2025
Registration No
2437/2025
Registration Date
17-Nov-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, PETLAD
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
Decision Date
18-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
0508
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 ISHWARBHAI BALUBHAI TALPADA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted the respondent Manjulaben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for alleged possession of contraband alcohol, finding insufficient evidence of exclusive and conscious possession and that key witnesses failed to adequately support the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting procedural deficiencies and lack of corroboration by material witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
30-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
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
-
16-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. 2437/2025
The court acquitted the respondent Manjulaben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for alleged possession of contraband alcohol, finding insufficient evidence of exclusive and conscious possession and that key witnesses failed to adequately support the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting procedural deficiencies and lack of corroboration by material witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts