State of Gujarat vs SHOBHABEN JAYANTIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 268/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005112026
Filing Number
268/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
268/2026
Registration Date
16-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PALITANA
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198042251254
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SHOBHABEN JAYANTIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Shobhaben Jayantibhai Vaghela The court acquitted the accused Shobhaben Jayantibhai Vaghela of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Section 65-AA), finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the case. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchnama (seizure document) was not sufficiently corroborated, independent witnesses were not examined, and no FSL report was produced to confirm the seized material was prohibited alcohol, creating reasonable doubt favoring the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Shobhaben Jayantibhai Vaghela The court acquitted the accused Shobhaben Jayantibhai Vaghela of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Section 65-AA), finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the case. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchnama (seizure document) was not sufficiently corroborated, independent witnesses were not examined, and no FSL report was produced to confirm the seized material was prohibited alcohol, creating reasonable doubt favoring the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts