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
Filing Number
254/2026
Filing Date
11-Feb-2026
Registration No
254/2026
Registration Date
11-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PALITANA
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
27-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198042251243
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.BASUBEN GHELABHAI AMARABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
27-Mar-2026
Disposed
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. 254/2026
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.
Explore other courts