THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs NEETABEN JESINGBHAI BUDHIYABHAI VASAVA — 93/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030001642026

Filing Number

93/2026

Filing Date

03-Jan-2026

Registration No

93/2026

Registration Date

03-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 09-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199004250925

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR CITY POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NEETABEN JESINGBHAI BUDHIYABHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted the respondent Neetaben Jesingbhai Budhiyabhai Vasava of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65 (possessing country liquor for sale), finding insufficient evidence as the panchnama (official record) was not properly substantiated by credible witnesses and testing laboratory reports were not produced. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of proper documentation and procedural compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 03-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 93/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the respondent Neetaben Jesingbhai Budhiyabhai Vasava of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65 (possessing country liquor for sale), finding insufficient evidence as the panchnama (official record) was not properly substantiated by credible witnesses and testing laboratory reports were not produced. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of proper documentation and procedural compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case