THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PIRABHAI MEVABHAI RAVAL Advocate - S B MALI — 525/2024
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK210006442024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
525/2024
Filing Date
08-10-2024
Registration No
525/2024
Registration Date
08-10-2024
Court
Taluka Court, Lakhni
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195008240532
Police Station
BHILDI POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PIRABHAI MEVABHAI RAVAL Advocate - S B MALI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 08-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused Pirabaai Mevabaai Ravel under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(f), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that when panchas (witnesses) are mandatory during a search under the Prohibition Act, the evidence of police officers must be corroborated; in this case, the panchas did not support the prosecution's claims, and critical procedural defects undermined the credibility of the seized liquor evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused Pirabaai Mevabaai Ravel under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(f), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that when panchas (witnesses) are mandatory during a search under the Prohibition Act, the evidence of police officers must be corroborated; in this case, the panchas did not support the prosecution's claims, and critical procedural defects undermined the credibility of the seized liquor evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts