THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DHARMENDRABHAI POPATBHAI DHARMAVAT — 431/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK130004822026

Filing Number

431/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

431/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT-DANTIWADA

Judge

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

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

45

Police Station

PANTHAWADA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DHARMENDRABHAI POPATBHAI DHARMAVAT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary The court acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(a) due to insufficient evidence. Although the prosecution alleged the accused was found with 500 ml of country liquor without proper permission during a police patrol, the key witness (panchanama witness) denied the allegation and the recovery evidence lacked proper corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case conclusively and granted the accused benefit of doubt under the Criminal Procedure Code, 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 431/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(a) due to insufficient evidence. Although the prosecution alleged the accused was found with 500 ml of country liquor without proper permission during a police patrol, the key witness (panchanama witness) denied the allegation and the recovery evidence lacked proper corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case conclusively and granted the accused benefit of doubt under the Criminal Procedure Code, 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case