THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SONABEN JIVANBHAI MANGUBHAI VASAVA — 97/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030001692026

Filing Number

97/2026

Filing Date

03-Jan-2026

Registration No

97/2026

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

11199004250941

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.SONABEN JIVANBHAI MANGUBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Sonaben Jivanbhai Mangubhai Vasava (97/2026) The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA), finding insufficient evidence that the five panchas (witnesses) who conducted the search properly verified the seized contraband sample. The court held that since the panchas were police officers rather than independent witnesses and failed to adequately corroborate the laboratory testing report, the prosecution's case lacked credibility and necessary procedural safeguards. 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. 97/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Sonaben Jivanbhai Mangubhai Vasava (97/2026) The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA), finding insufficient evidence that the five panchas (witnesses) who conducted the search properly verified the seized contraband sample. The court held that since the panchas were police officers rather than independent witnesses and failed to adequately corroborate the laboratory testing report, the prosecution's case lacked credibility and necessary procedural safeguards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case