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
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
225/2026
Filing Date
10-02-2026
Registration No
225/2026
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
11996006260120
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KIRANBHAI MEVABHAI MAJIRANA Advocate - R B 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 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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts