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-Feb-2026
Registration No
264/2026
Registration Date
16-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PALITANA
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198042251209
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.VIJUBEN DINESHBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
17-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
27-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
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
-
16-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 264/2026
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.
Explore other courts