Government of Gujarat vs BABIBEN W/O RADHUJI BHALUJI THAKOR Advocate - A A JAGRALA — 11/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 28th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK030000112026
e-Filing Number
22-12-2025
Filing Number
11/2026
Filing Date
01-Jan-2026
Registration No
11/2026
Registration Date
01-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, VADGAM
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
28-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195009250514
Police Station
CHHAPI POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.BABIBEN W/O RADHUJI BHALUJI THAKOR Advocate - A A JAGRALA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Vadgam Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused Babiben under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that independent panch witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's case, and relying solely on police testimony without independent corroboration was insufficient to prove the offense of illegal liquor possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Apr-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 11/2026
Court Decision Summary The Vadgam Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused Babiben under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that independent panch witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's case, and relying solely on police testimony without independent corroboration was insufficient to prove the offense of illegal liquor possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts