State of Gujarat vs PUJABEN RAHULBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 290/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005342026
Filing Number
290/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
290/2026
Registration Date
17-02-2026
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
11198042251123
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PUJABEN RAHULBHAI 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 |
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC.NO.290-2026 The court acquitted respondent Pujaben Rahulbhai Vaghela of charges under the Mumbai (Gujarat) Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A). The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that prohibited alcohol was recovered from the accused's possession, as the panchnama (seizure document) lacked corroboration from independent witnesses and no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report confirmed the nature of the seized substance. Applying precedent principles, the court held that when vital prosecution evidence remains unsubstantiated and contradictions exist in witness testimonies, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC.NO.290-2026 The court acquitted respondent Pujaben Rahulbhai Vaghela of charges under the Mumbai (Gujarat) Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A). The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that prohibited alcohol was recovered from the accused's possession, as the panchnama (seizure document) lacked corroboration from independent witnesses and no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report confirmed the nature of the seized substance. Applying precedent principles, the court held that when vital prosecution evidence remains unsubstantiated and contradictions exist in witness testimonies, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts