THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs VARSHABEN KANCHANBHAI RATILALBHAI VASAVA — 4884/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030100822025

Filing Number

4884/2025

Filing Date

06-Dec-2025

Registration No

4884/2025

Registration Date

06-Dec-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

11199061250710

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR CITY B DIVISION 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.VARSHABEN KANCHANBHAI RATILALBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted respondent Varshaben Kanchanbhai Ratilalbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65 (possession of liquor for sale), finding insufficient evidence against her. The prosecution failed to establish proper panchnama (witness statements) and reliable testing of seized samples, and the court determined that the charge sheet lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to sustain conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 31-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 08-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4884/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted respondent Varshaben Kanchanbhai Ratilalbhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65 (possession of liquor for sale), finding insufficient evidence against her. The prosecution failed to establish proper panchnama (witness statements) and reliable testing of seized samples, and the court determined that the charge sheet lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to sustain conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case