THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs BHALSINH SHIVSINH VAGHELA Advocate - A R MATHUR — 414/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(F),65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK130004642026

Filing Number

414/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

414/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT-DANTIWADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

118

Police Station

DANTIWADA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(F),65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHALSINH SHIVSINH VAGHELA Advocate - A R MATHUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The court acquitted the accused (Bhalsinhji Shivsinh Vagheila) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, due to insufficient and unreliable prosecution evidence. The court found that the prosecution witnesses (panchas/neutral observers) contradicted their statements and the police officer's testimony, while the seized contraband (unauthorized liquor worth ₹2,900) lacked proper chain of custody documentation, making the case against the accused fail to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 414/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused (Bhalsinhji Shivsinh Vagheila) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, due to insufficient and unreliable prosecution evidence. The court found that the prosecution witnesses (panchas/neutral observers) contradicted their statements and the police officer's testimony, while the seized contraband (unauthorized liquor worth ₹2,900) lacked proper chain of custody documentation, making the case against the accused fail to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case