THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRAVINJI RANCHODJI DHEPA Advocate - V I LODNA — 436/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(F). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK130004872026

Filing Number

436/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

436/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT-DANTIWADA

Judge

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

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 06-May-2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRAVINJI RANCHODJI DHEPA Advocate - V I LODNA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The court acquitted the accused in this case under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(f) for illegal possession of country-made liquor. The court found that while illicit liquor was recovered from the accused's field hut, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient and contradictory evidence, including the absence of proper panchnama witnesses and lack of identification of the accused at the recovery site. The judgment upheld criminal jurisprudence principles requiring reliable corroborating evidence for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 436/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused in this case under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(f) for illegal possession of country-made liquor. The court found that while illicit liquor was recovered from the accused's field hut, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient and contradictory evidence, including the absence of proper panchnama witnesses and lack of identification of the accused at the recovery site. The judgment upheld criminal jurisprudence principles requiring reliable corroborating evidence for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case