THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DHIRUBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - R S BHALIYA — 1686/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN050024722025
Filing Number
1686/2025
Filing Date
11-Aug-2025
Registration No
1686/2025
Registration Date
11-Aug-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA
Judge
5-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198035250546
Police Station
MAHUVA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.DHIRUBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - R S BHALIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
The respondent was acquitted of charges under the Prohibition Act for allegedly possessing 0.8 liters of liquor valued at ₹1,600. The court found the prosecution's case lacked credibility as the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution, the investigation procedure was procedurally defective, and critical evidence gaps existed regarding the accused's ownership of the seized liquor. The accused was acquitted under CrPC Section 248(1) with seized items to be destroyed per judicial procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
29-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
01-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1686/2025
The respondent was acquitted of charges under the Prohibition Act for allegedly possessing 0.8 liters of liquor valued at ₹1,600. The court found the prosecution's case lacked credibility as the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution, the investigation procedure was procedurally defective, and critical evidence gaps existed regarding the accused's ownership of the seized liquor. The accused was acquitted under CrPC Section 248(1) with seized items to be destroyed per judicial procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts