Government of Gujarat vs RAJUBHAI KANTIBHAI DEVIPUJAK Advocate - A A JAGRALA — 1682/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK030019692025
e-Filing Number
07-10-2025
Filing Number
1682/2025
Filing Date
12-Dec-2025
Registration No
1682/2025
Registration Date
12-Dec-2025
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
380
Police Station
CHHAPI POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAJUBHAI KANTIBHAI DEVIPUJAK Advocate - A A JAGRALA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The Vadgam Judicial Magistrate's Court acquitted the accused Rajubhai Kantiabhai (charged under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65) for alleged illegal liquor possession, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that independent panch witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's evidence, the investigation procedure was questionable, and relying solely on police testimony without independent corroboration was insufficient to establish guilt in prohibition cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
03-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1682/2025
Summary The Vadgam Judicial Magistrate's Court acquitted the accused Rajubhai Kantiabhai (charged under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65) for alleged illegal liquor possession, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that independent panch witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's evidence, the investigation procedure was questionable, and relying solely on police testimony without independent corroboration was insufficient to establish guilt in prohibition cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts