Government of Gujarat vs KIRANBHAI MEVABHAI MAJIRANA Advocate - R B DAVE — 225/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK080003262026
Filing Number
225/2026
Filing Date
10-Feb-2026
Registration No
225/2026
Registration Date
10-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996006260120
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.KIRANBHAI MEVABHAI MAJIRANA Advocate - R B DAVE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
SUMMARY: The court acquitted accused Kiranbhai Mevabhai Majirana of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 65(A)(A), 116(B)) for alleged illegal possession of 98 bottles of country liquor. The court found the prosecution's case baseless and doubtful, primarily because the panch witnesses turned hostile and denied that the panchnama was prepared in their presence—they only signed a pre-made document. Additionally, the investigation appeared partial as only police personnel were examined as witnesses despite the incident occurring in a public place, and the liquid's identity as country liquor was not conclusively proven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 225/2026
SUMMARY: The court acquitted accused Kiranbhai Mevabhai Majirana of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 65(A)(A), 116(B)) for alleged illegal possession of 98 bottles of country liquor. The court found the prosecution's case baseless and doubtful, primarily because the panch witnesses turned hostile and denied that the panchnama was prepared in their presence—they only signed a pre-made document. Additionally, the investigation appeared partial as only police personnel were examined as witnesses despite the incident occurring in a public place, and the liquid's identity as country liquor was not conclusively proven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts