State of Gujarat vs TULSHIBHAI RANABHAI BARAIYA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 242/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070004792026
Filing Number
242/2026
Filing Date
11-02-2026
Registration No
242/2026
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
11198042251164
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
TULSHIBHAI RANABHAI BARAIYA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
Case Summary: C.C. No. 242/2026 Decision: The court acquitted accused Tulshibhai Ranabhai Baraiya of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that prohibited liquor was recovered from the accused's possession, as no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report was produced to confirm the seized material's nature. The court found critical gaps in evidence, particularly that panchnama (seizure document) lacked proper corroboration from independent witnesses, and the pantch witnesses' testimony did not substantiate the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 242/2026 Decision: The court acquitted accused Tulshibhai Ranabhai Baraiya of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that prohibited liquor was recovered from the accused's possession, as no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report was produced to confirm the seized material's nature. The court found critical gaps in evidence, particularly that panchnama (seizure document) lacked proper corroboration from independent witnesses, and the pantch witnesses' testimony did not substantiate the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts