State of Gujarat vs BASUBEN GHELABHAI AMARABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 252/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070004892026
Filing Number
252/2026
Filing Date
11-02-2026
Registration No
252/2026
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
11198042251082
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BASUBEN GHELABHAI AMARABHAI VAGHELA 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. 252/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Basuben Ghelabhai Amarabhai Vaghela, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchnama (seizure record) was not properly substantiated, independent witnesses were not examined, FSL reports on the seized contraband were absent, and the panchs who testified could not corroborate the prosecution's allegations. Applying established legal precedent, the court held that when key evidence remains unproven and suspicions arise regarding seized materials, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. The accused was discharged and existing bail conditions continued during appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 252/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Basuben Ghelabhai Amarabhai Vaghela, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchnama (seizure record) was not properly substantiated, independent witnesses were not examined, FSL reports on the seized contraband were absent, and the panchs who testified could not corroborate the prosecution's allegations. Applying established legal precedent, the court held that when key evidence remains unproven and suspicions arise regarding seized materials, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. The accused was discharged and existing bail conditions continued during appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts