THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SHANIBEN MAGANBHAI MANJIBHAI VASAVA — 439/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030006882026

Filing Number

439/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

439/2026

Registration Date

21-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

11199021251086

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR G.I.D.C. 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.SHANIBEN MAGANBHAI MANJIBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted respondent Shaniben Maganbhai Manjibhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 2017, Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case against her beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution's witnesses were police officers rather than independent observers, the panch (witness) statements lacked corroboration, and the seized samples were not properly authenticated through credible testing laboratory reports. 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

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 439/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted respondent Shaniben Maganbhai Manjibhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 2017, Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case against her beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution's witnesses were police officers rather than independent observers, the panch (witness) statements lacked corroboration, and the seized samples were not properly authenticated through credible testing laboratory reports. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case