Government of Gujarat vs KARANSINH RUPJI VAGHELA Advocate - K D PRAJAPATI — 205/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa,116(b),. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK080002992026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
205/2026
Filing Date
09-02-2026
Registration No
205/2026
Registration Date
09-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996006260064
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KARANSINH RUPJI VAGHELA Advocate - K D PRAJAPATI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 03-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 09-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 205/2026, Tharad Court, Gujarat Court's Decision: The accused, Karansinh Rupji Baghela, was acquitted and discharged of charges under the Prohibition Act, Sections 65(a)(a) and 116(b). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that foreign liquor bottles were in the accused's conscious possession, citing insufficient evidence, lack of independent witnesses, incomplete panchnama (seizure record), and inconsistencies in the investigation. The court applied the principle that when reasonable doubt exists, the benefit goes to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 205/2026, Tharad Court, Gujarat Court's Decision: The accused, Karansinh Rupji Baghela, was acquitted and discharged of charges under the Prohibition Act, Sections 65(a)(a) and 116(b). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that foreign liquor bottles were in the accused's conscious possession, citing insufficient evidence, lack of independent witnesses, incomplete panchnama (seizure record), and inconsistencies in the investigation. The court applied the principle that when reasonable doubt exists, the benefit goes to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts