GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs JITENDRAKUMAR MEGHJIBHAI PATIDAR Advocate - K K PARMAR — 726/2023

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116B,98(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAR040007482023

Filing Number

726/2023

Filing Date

07-Feb-2023

Registration No

726/2023

Registration Date

07-Feb-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, MEGHRAJ

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

03-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11188007210387

Police Station

MEGHRAJ POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116B,98(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JITENDRAKUMAR MEGHJIBHAI PATIDAR Advocate - K K PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused Jitendrakumar Meghjiblai Patidar of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act sections 65(A), 116(B), and 98(2) due to insufficient evidence. The complainant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as crucial evidence—including sealed bottles with proper company labels and authentication—was not adequately presented in the trial record. The court found the prosecution's case lacked substantive corroboration and ordered the accused's release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 29-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 01-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 14-Nov-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 29-Aug-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 06-Jun-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 08-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 30-Apr-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 29-Apr-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 08-Apr-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 24-Feb-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 24-Jan-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 13-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 04-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 31-Aug-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 16-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 21-Jun-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 02-May-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 04-Mar-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 02-Jan-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 20-Oct-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 22-Aug-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 15-Jun-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 21-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 07-Feb-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 726/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused Jitendrakumar Meghjiblai Patidar of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act sections 65(A), 116(B), and 98(2) due to insufficient evidence. The complainant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as crucial evidence—including sealed bottles with proper company labels and authentication—was not adequately presented in the trial record. The court found the prosecution's case lacked substantive corroboration and ordered the accused's release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case