THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ANJUBEN JITENDRABHAI NATVARBHAI VASAVA — 627/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH030009612026
Filing Number
627/2026
Filing Date
30-Jan-2026
Registration No
627/2026
Registration Date
30-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR
Judge
7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199021251461
Police Station
ANKLESHWAR G.I.D.C. POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.ANJUBEN JITENDRABHAI NATVARBHAI VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted respondent Anjuben Jitendrabhai Natvarbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence of illegal liquor sale. The court determined that the panchanama (inspection record) lacked proper foundation, the five witnesses were primarily police officers rather than independent witnesses, and critical procedural requirements were not satisfied, rendering the case against the respondent unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
01-May-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Apr-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
15-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
-
06-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 627/2026
The court acquitted respondent Anjuben Jitendrabhai Natvarbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence of illegal liquor sale. The court determined that the panchanama (inspection record) lacked proper foundation, the five witnesses were primarily police officers rather than independent witnesses, and critical procedural requirements were not satisfied, rendering the case against the respondent unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts