THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs URMILABEN RAJUBHAI CHATURBHAI RATHOD — 3525/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH030073682025
Filing Number
3525/2025
Filing Date
02-Sep-2025
Registration No
3525/2025
Registration Date
02-Sep-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
11199021250484
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.URMILABEN RAJUBHAI CHATURBHAI RATHOD
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted respondent Urmilaben Rajubhai Chaturbhai Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for allegedly selling illicit liquor, finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution's case hinged on a panchnama (witnesses' statement) that lacked credibility—the panchas were police officials rather than independent witnesses, and their testimony could not substantiate the alleged offense without corroborating evidence. 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
-
13-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Nov-2025
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3525/2025
The court acquitted respondent Urmilaben Rajubhai Chaturbhai Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for allegedly selling illicit liquor, finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution's case hinged on a panchnama (witnesses' statement) that lacked credibility—the panchas were police officials rather than independent witnesses, and their testimony could not substantiate the alleged offense without corroborating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts