State of Gujarat vs GAVUBEN KUSHAVBHAI CHAUHAN Advocate - A B JOSHI — 299/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005432026
Filing Number
299/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
299/2026
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
11198042251264
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.GAVUBEN KUSHAVBHAI CHAUHAN Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary of Case 299/2026 The court acquitted defendant Gavuben Kushavbhai Chauhan of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no FSL (forensic science laboratory) report confirmed the seized material's nature, panchas (witnesses) failed to corroborate the panchnama, and independent witnesses were not examined, creating reasonable doubt about the alleged illegal possession of liquor without proper permit. 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. 299/2026
Summary of Case 299/2026 The court acquitted defendant Gavuben Kushavbhai Chauhan of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no FSL (forensic science laboratory) report confirmed the seized material's nature, panchas (witnesses) failed to corroborate the panchnama, and independent witnesses were not examined, creating reasonable doubt about the alleged illegal possession of liquor without proper permit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts