THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SHARDABEN RAMESHBHAI HIRABHAI VASAVA — 5040/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030104212025

Filing Number

5040/2025

Filing Date

11-Dec-2025

Registration No

5040/2025

Registration Date

11-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 09-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

111990061250534

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR RURAL 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.SHARDABEN RAMESHBHAI HIRABHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted respondent Shardaben Rameshbhai Hirabhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA), finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations. The court determined that the investigation was flawed, the panchnama (seizure document) was not properly authenticated, and the investigating officer's testimony was unreliable, thus warranting acquittal under CrPC Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 04-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 29-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 11-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 5040/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted respondent Shardaben Rameshbhai Hirabhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(AA), finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations. The court determined that the investigation was flawed, the panchnama (seizure document) was not properly authenticated, and the investigating officer's testimony was unreliable, thus warranting acquittal under CrPC Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case