THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs UKKADBHAI MAGANBHAI VASAVA — 296/2023

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A), 81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030007172023

Filing Number

296/2023

Filing Date

27-Jan-2023

Registration No

296/2023

Registration Date

27-Jan-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 22-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1862

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR CITY POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A), 81

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UKKADBHAI MAGANBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted defendant Ukkadbhai Maganbhai Vasava of charges under the Prohibition Act and NDPS Act, finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish a strong case as the key investigation officer's statements lacked credibility, independent witnesses were absent, and crucial procedural safeguards in evidence collection were not properly followed. The acquittal was based on reasonable doubt principles and prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Order

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 24-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 01-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 02-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 02-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 10-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 20-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 27-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 26-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 08-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 13-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 18-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 24-Jan-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 12-Dec-2023

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 30-Oct-2023

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 05-Sep-2023

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 25-Jul-2023

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 30-May-2023

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 17-Apr-2023

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 27-Feb-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 27-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 296/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted defendant Ukkadbhai Maganbhai Vasava of charges under the Prohibition Act and NDPS Act, finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish a strong case as the key investigation officer's statements lacked credibility, independent witnesses were absent, and crucial procedural safeguards in evidence collection were not properly followed. The acquittal was based on reasonable doubt principles and prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case