State of Gujarat vs VARSHABEN JAYSUKHBHAI NAVDIYA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 293/2026

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070005372026

Case disposed

Filing Number

293/2026

Filing Date

17-02-2026

Registration No

293/2026

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

11198042260051

Police Station

PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

State of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

VARSHABEN JAYSUKHBHAI NAVDIYA Advocate - A B JOSHI

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

27-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court acquitted the accused, Varshaben Jaysukhbhai Navdiya, of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps, including the absence of an FSL report confirming the seized material was alcohol, unreliable panchnama documentation, and witness testimony that contradicted rather than supported the complainant's case, warranting the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused, Varshaben Jaysukhbhai Navdiya, of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps, including the absence of an FSL report confirming the seized material was alcohol, unreliable panchnama documentation, and witness testimony that contradicted rather than supported the complainant's case, warranting the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case