THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SANTOSHIBEN MULJIBHAI PIRUBHAI VASAVA — 2862/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH030062482025
Filing Number
2862/2025
Filing Date
25-Jul-2025
Registration No
2862/2025
Registration Date
25-Jul-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR
Judge
7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
02-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199060250245
Police Station
PANOLI POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SANTOSHIBEN MULJIBHAI PIRUBHAI VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
Judegement
The court acquitted respondent Santoshiben Muljibhai Pirubhai Vasava of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA) for allegedly possessing and selling illicit liquor. The court found insufficient evidence as the panchnama (witness statement) lacked credibility—the witnesses were police officers rather than independent civilians, and critical procedural requirements were not met, making the seizure and evidence unreliable for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Mar-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Feb-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Nov-2025
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Oct-2025
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2862/2025
The court acquitted respondent Santoshiben Muljibhai Pirubhai Vasava of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA) for allegedly possessing and selling illicit liquor. The court found insufficient evidence as the panchnama (witness statement) lacked credibility—the witnesses were police officers rather than independent civilians, and critical procedural requirements were not met, making the seizure and evidence unreliable for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts