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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65F

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

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

10-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Taluka Court, Lakhni All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case