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-Feb-2026
Registration No
293/2026
Registration Date
17-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PALITANA
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
27-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198042260051
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.VARSHABEN JAYSUKHBHAI NAVDIYA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
27-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
06-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 293/2026
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.
Explore other courts