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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA,

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

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

16-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, THARAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case