THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs HANSABEN PIYUSHBHAI SHANKARBHAI VASAVA — 101/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030001732026

Filing Number

101/2026

Filing Date

03-Jan-2026

Registration No

101/2026

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

11199004250973

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.HANSABEN PIYUSHBHAI SHANKARBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: The State of Gujarat v. Hansaben Piyushbhai Shankarbhai Vasava (Case 101/2026) The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the panchnama (official record) was valid, as the witnesses were police officers rather than independent citizens, and their testimonies lacked credibility regarding the seizure details and laboratory testing results. 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. 101/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The State of Gujarat v. Hansaben Piyushbhai Shankarbhai Vasava (Case 101/2026) The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the panchnama (official record) was valid, as the witnesses were police officers rather than independent citizens, and their testimonies lacked credibility regarding the seizure details and laboratory testing results. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case