Government of Gujarat vs GEETABEN W/O JAYNTIBHAI KESHABHAI DEVIPUJAK Advocate - L D JADAV — 137/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK030001792026

e-Filing Number

12-01-2026

Filing Number

137/2026

Filing Date

31-Jan-2026

Registration No

137/2026

Registration Date

31-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, VADGAM

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

03-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11195009250696

Police Station

CHHAPI POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GEETABEN W/O JAYNTIBHAI KESHABHAI DEVIPUJAK Advocate - L D JADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Court Judgment Summary The Vadodara Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that independent panch (witness) testimony did not corroborate the prosecution's case, investigative procedures were flawed, and reliance solely on police witnesses was insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 31-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 137/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Judgment Summary The Vadodara Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that independent panch (witness) testimony did not corroborate the prosecution's case, investigative procedures were flawed, and reliance solely on police witnesses was insufficient for 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