State of Gujarat vs VIJUBEN DINESHBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 264/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005072026
Filing Number
264/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
264/2026
Registration Date
16-02-2026
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
11198042251209
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
VIJUBEN DINESHBHAI 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: State of Gujarat v. Vijuben Dineshbhai Vaghela (264/2026) The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing prohibited liquor without a valid permit. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because: (1) the panchnama (seizure record) remained unsubstantiated as the panches (witnesses) provided no supporting evidence; (2) no FSL report confirmed the seized material was actually liquor; and (3) independent witnesses were not examined, creating reasonable doubt about the evidence's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Vijuben Dineshbhai Vaghela (264/2026) The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing prohibited liquor without a valid permit. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because: (1) the panchnama (seizure record) remained unsubstantiated as the panches (witnesses) provided no supporting evidence; (2) no FSL report confirmed the seized material was actually liquor; and (3) independent witnesses were not examined, creating reasonable doubt about the evidence's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts