THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RUPESHBHAI RAJUBHAI VASAVA — 406/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH030006512026
Filing Number
406/2026
Filing Date
20-Jan-2026
Registration No
406/2026
Registration Date
20-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR
Judge
7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
13-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199061250973
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.RUPESHBHAI RAJUBHAI VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Rupeshbhai Rajubhai Vasava (406/2026) The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish proper panchnama (formal record) as the panchas were police officers rather than independent witnesses, and the seized samples lacked proper testing documentation, making the case legally insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-May-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-May-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-May-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-May-2026
Process To Accused
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. 406/2026
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Rupeshbhai Rajubhai Vasava (406/2026) The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish proper panchnama (formal record) as the panchas were police officers rather than independent witnesses, and the seized samples lacked proper testing documentation, making the case legally insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts