THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DAKSHABEN NARANBHAI JINABHAI RATHOD — 100/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030001722026

Filing Number

100/2026

Filing Date

03-Jan-2026

Registration No

100/2026

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

11199004250962

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.DAKSHABEN NARANBHAI JINABHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted the respondent Dakshaben Naranbhai Jinabhai Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2017, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence and procedural defects in the prosecution's case. The court noted that the panchanama (official record) lacked proper corroboration, the investigating officer's report on sample testing was not produced, and the five witnesses were primarily police officials rather than independent observers, rendering their testimony unreliable. 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. 100/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the respondent Dakshaben Naranbhai Jinabhai Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2017, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence and procedural defects in the prosecution's case. The court noted that the panchanama (official record) lacked proper corroboration, the investigating officer's report on sample testing was not produced, and the five witnesses were primarily police officials rather than independent observers, rendering their testimony unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case