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
Filing Number
239/2026
Filing Date
11-Feb-2026
Registration No
239/2026
Registration Date
11-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PALITANA
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198042250892
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAJESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
17-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
27-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
27-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 239/2026
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.
Explore other courts