THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs JYOTIBEN RAJUBHAI NAGINBHAI VASAVA Advocate - S.A.VAKANI — 860/2024

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 Section 12(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030014812024

Filing Number

860/2024

Filing Date

05-Feb-2024

Registration No

860/2024

Registration Date

05-Feb-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0992

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR CITY POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 Section 12(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JYOTIBEN RAJUBHAI NAGINBHAI VASAVA Advocate - S.A.VAKANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: CC 860/2024 Decision: The Gujarat court acquitted accused Jyotiben Rajubhai Naginbhai Vasava of charges under the Gambling Act after finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish a credible case, as witness testimonies were contradictory and lacked corroboration, while the seized evidence (betting slips, currency notes, and other materials) could not conclusively prove the accused's involvement in illegal gambling activities. Key Reasoning: The court noted that the prosecution's case relied heavily on police statements without independent verification. The five witnesses examined by the prosecution provided inconsistent accounts about the accused's direct participation in the alleged betting operation, and the accused's denial of involvement could not be disproven beyond reasonable doubt based on available evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Order

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    Order

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 19-Feb-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 13-Jan-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 02-Dec-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 29-Oct-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 09-Sep-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 14-Aug-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 11-Jul-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 09-Jul-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 09-May-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 07-Mar-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 13-Dec-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 14-Sep-2024

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 20-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 22-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 11-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  22. 13-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 05-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 860/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 860/2024 Decision: The Gujarat court acquitted accused Jyotiben Rajubhai Naginbhai Vasava of charges under the Gambling Act after finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish a credible case, as witness testimonies were contradictory and lacked corroboration, while the seized evidence (betting slips, currency notes, and other materials) could not conclusively prove the accused's involvement in illegal gambling activities. Key Reasoning: The court noted that the prosecution's case relied heavily on police statements without independent verification. The five witnesses examined by the prosecution provided inconsistent accounts about the accused's direct participation in the alleged betting operation, and the accused's denial of involvement could not be disproven beyond reasonable doubt based on available evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case