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
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
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
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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts