THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAJESHBHAI AKA RAJA SHANTUBHAI VASAVA — 397/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH030006422026
Filing Number
397/2026
Filing Date
20-Jan-2026
Registration No
397/2026
Registration Date
20-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR
Judge
7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
11-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199061250663
Police Station
ANKLESHWAR CITY B DIVISION POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAJESHBHAI AKA RAJA SHANTUBHAI VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted the respondent Rajeshbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA) for allegedly selling country liquor without permission, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge through credible evidence, particularly because the panch (witness) statements lacked proper corroboration and the investigating officer's testing report on the seized liquid was not produced. The court held that without sufficient substantive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the respondent was entitled to acquittal under Section 271(1) of the CrPC 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-May-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-May-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-May-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Apr-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 397/2026
The court acquitted the respondent Rajeshbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA) for allegedly selling country liquor without permission, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge through credible evidence, particularly because the panch (witness) statements lacked proper corroboration and the investigating officer's testing report on the seized liquid was not produced. The court held that without sufficient substantive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the respondent was entitled to acquittal under Section 271(1) of the CrPC 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts