State of Gujarat vs AMINABEN VALJIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 301/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005452026
Filing Number
301/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
301/2026
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
11198042251266
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
AMINABEN VALJIBHAI 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
Summary of Case 301/2026 The court acquitted accused Aminaben Valjibhai Vaghela of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no FSL report confirmed the seized substance was alcohol, independent witnesses were not examined, panchas (independent witnesses) provided insufficient corroboration, and conflicting witness statements created reasonable doubt about the alleged offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 301/2026 The court acquitted accused Aminaben Valjibhai Vaghela of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no FSL report confirmed the seized substance was alcohol, independent witnesses were not examined, panchas (independent witnesses) provided insufficient corroboration, and conflicting witness statements created reasonable doubt about the alleged offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts