State of Gujarat vs BASUBEN GHELABHAI AMARABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 254/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070004912026

Case disposed

Filing Number

254/2026

Filing Date

11-02-2026

Registration No

254/2026

Registration Date

11-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

27th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198042251243

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)

BASUBEN GHELABHAI AMARABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI

Hearing History

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

27-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

27-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Basuben Ghelabhai Amarabhai Vaghela The court acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that prohibited liquor was recovered from her possession without proper permit. The judgment emphasized that the panchnama (seizure document) was not adequately corroborated, independent witnesses were not examined, and no FSL report confirmed the seized material's nature, creating reasonable doubt warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Basuben Ghelabhai Amarabhai Vaghela The court acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that prohibited liquor was recovered from her possession without proper permit. The judgment emphasized that the panchnama (seizure document) was not adequately corroborated, independent witnesses were not examined, and no FSL report confirmed the seized material's nature, creating reasonable doubt warranting acquittal. 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