Government of Gujarat vs VIKRAMJI POPATJI MADHVATAR (THAKOR) Advocate - M P ZALA — 17624/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK020295322025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

17624/2025

Filing Date

03-12-2025

Registration No

17624/2025

Registration Date

03-12-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT PALANPUR

Judge

5-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

24th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11195024250459

Police Station

GADH POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65F

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

VIKRAMJI POPATJI MADHVATAR (THAKOR) Advocate - M P ZALA

Hearing History

Judge: 5-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

24-04-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

04-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

02-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

24-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary Court Decision: The Magistrate acquitted the accused (Vikramji Popat Madhatr) of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(f), finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged possession and sale of illicit liquor on the specified date. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the prosecution's case was built primarily on police witnesses, whose testimonies lacked independent corroboration from neutral witnesses. The independent witnesses (panchas) who certified the seizure could not substantiate the key details, and critical forensic analysis (FSL certificate confirming the substance as illicit liquor) was absent from the court record, making it impossible to conclusively establish the nature of the seized material. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Court Decision: The Magistrate acquitted the accused (Vikramji Popat Madhatr) of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(f), finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged possession and sale of illicit liquor on the specified date. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the prosecution's case was built primarily on police witnesses, whose testimonies lacked independent corroboration from neutral witnesses. The independent witnesses (panchas) who certified the seizure could not substantiate the key details, and critical forensic analysis (FSL certificate confirming the substance as illicit liquor) was absent from the court record, making it impossible to conclusively establish the nature of the seized material. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT PALANPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case