State of Gujarat vs GITABEN DULABHAI HIRABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 255/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070004922026
Filing Number
255/2026
Filing Date
11-Feb-2026
Registration No
255/2026
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
11198042251213
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.GITABEN DULABHAI HIRABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted the defendant Gitaben Dulabhai Hirabhai 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 determined that the panchnama (seizure record) was incomplete and unsupported, the independent witnesses' testimony contradicted rather than corroborated the prosecution's narrative, and crucially, no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report was produced to confirm the seized material was actually prohibited liquor, creating reasonable doubt favoring the accused. 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. 255/2026
The court acquitted the defendant Gitaben Dulabhai Hirabhai 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 determined that the panchnama (seizure record) was incomplete and unsupported, the independent witnesses' testimony contradicted rather than corroborated the prosecution's narrative, and crucially, no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report was produced to confirm the seized material was actually prohibited liquor, creating reasonable doubt favoring the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts