Government of Gujarat vs VINODBHAI KHUSHALBHAI RAJGOR Advocate - C V DAVE — 222/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa,116(b),. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK080003232026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
222/2026
Filing Date
10-02-2026
Registration No
222/2026
Registration Date
10-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996006251125
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
VINODBHAI KHUSHALBHAI RAJGOR Advocate - C V DAVE
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 10-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted accused Vinodbhai Khushalbhai Rajgor of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 65(A)(A), 116(B)) for illegal possession of 90 bottles of country liquor. The court found the prosecution's case baseless and doubtful, primarily because the panchnama witness turned hostile, denying that the document was prepared in his presence and stating he merely signed a ready-made form. Additionally, the investigation lacked independent witnesses and showed procedural irregularities, preventing the prosecution from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted accused Vinodbhai Khushalbhai Rajgor of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 65(A)(A), 116(B)) for illegal possession of 90 bottles of country liquor. The court found the prosecution's case baseless and doubtful, primarily because the panchnama witness turned hostile, denying that the document was prepared in his presence and stating he merely signed a ready-made form. Additionally, the investigation lacked independent witnesses and showed procedural irregularities, preventing the prosecution from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts