THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KAILASHBEN BUDHABHAI NATVARBHAI VASAVA — 695/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030010592026

Filing Number

695/2026

Filing Date

04-Feb-2026

Registration No

695/2026

Registration Date

04-Feb-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 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199021251468

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.KAILASHBEN BUDHABHAI NATVARBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted Kailashben Budhabhai Natvarbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the panchnama (seizure record) and lacked credible witness testimony, as the panch members were police officers rather than independent witnesses, undermining the integrity of the investigation and seizure procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-May-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-May-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 11-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 04-May-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 20-Apr-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 04-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 695/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted Kailashben Budhabhai Natvarbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the panchnama (seizure record) and lacked credible witness testimony, as the panch members were police officers rather than independent witnesses, undermining the integrity of the investigation and seizure procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case