State of Gujarat vs JINTUBEN RAMESHBHAI AMARABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 263/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070005062026

Filing Number

263/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

263/2026

Registration Date

16-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

11198042250774

Police Station

PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JINTUBEN RAMESHBHAI AMARABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: C.C.NO.263-2026 The court acquitted defendant Jintuben Rameshbhai Amarabhai Vaghela of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove its case. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchnama (seizure record) was not adequately corroborated, independent witnesses were not examined, and no FSL report was produced to confirm the seized substance was alcohol, creating reasonable doubt favoring the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 263/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C.NO.263-2026 The court acquitted defendant Jintuben Rameshbhai Amarabhai Vaghela of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove its case. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchnama (seizure record) was not adequately corroborated, independent witnesses were not examined, and no FSL report was produced to confirm the seized substance was alcohol, creating reasonable doubt favoring the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case