State of Gujarat vs RAJESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 239/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070004762026

Case disposed

Filing Number

239/2026

Filing Date

11-02-2026

Registration No

239/2026

Registration Date

11-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198042250892

Police Station

PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

State of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

RAJESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

17-04-2026

Disposed

27-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

27-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court acquitted the accused, Rajeshbhai Ravjibhai Vaghela, of charges under Section 65(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 for alleged illegal possession of liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical gaps: no independent witnesses were examined, the panch (witness) testimony did not corroborate the charge sheet, no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report confirmed the seized material was alcohol, and the panchayat record itself remained unproven. Applying precedent principles that when panchas become complainant witnesses and evidence contains contradictions, the accused deserves benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused, Rajeshbhai Ravjibhai Vaghela, of charges under Section 65(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 for alleged illegal possession of liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical gaps: no independent witnesses were examined, the panch (witness) testimony did not corroborate the charge sheet, no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report confirmed the seized material was alcohol, and the panchayat record itself remained unproven. Applying precedent principles that when panchas become complainant witnesses and evidence contains contradictions, the accused deserves benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case