Government of Gujarat vs SATISHBHAI CHANDUBHAI VASAVA — 171/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH070001892026
Filing Number
171/2026
Filing Date
24-Feb-2026
Registration No
171/2026
Registration Date
24-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, AMOD
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199003240965
Police Station
AMOD POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SATISHBHAI CHANDUBHAI VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: 171/2026 - Government of Gujarat v. Satishbhai Chandubhai Vasava The court acquitted the accused Satishbhai Chandubhai Vasava of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A) and 81, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no forensic laboratory report confirming the seized liquid was narcotic, lack of independent witness statements, and the sole reliance on police testimonies without corroborating evidence, warranting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-May-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-May-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Apr-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 171/2026
Case Summary: 171/2026 - Government of Gujarat v. Satishbhai Chandubhai Vasava The court acquitted the accused Satishbhai Chandubhai Vasava of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A) and 81, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no forensic laboratory report confirming the seized liquid was narcotic, lack of independent witness statements, and the sole reliance on police testimonies without corroborating evidence, warranting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts