State of Gujarat vs ANASUYABEN MUKESHBHAI VALJIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 317/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070005632026

Case disposed

Filing Number

317/2026

Filing Date

18-02-2026

Registration No

317/2026

Registration Date

18-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198042260059

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)

ANASUYABEN MUKESHBHAI VALJIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI

Hearing History

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

17-04-2026

Disposed

27-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: 317/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Anasuyaben Mukeshbhai Valjibhai Vaghela, of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that prohibited alcohol was recovered from the accused's possession, as critical evidence—including independent witness testimony, FSL reports on the seized material, and a properly authenticated panchnama (seizure record)—was either absent or unreliable. The court found contradictions in witness statements and noted that witnesses examined by the prosecution did not adequately support the case, warranting the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 317/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Anasuyaben Mukeshbhai Valjibhai Vaghela, of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that prohibited alcohol was recovered from the accused's possession, as critical evidence—including independent witness testimony, FSL reports on the seized material, and a properly authenticated panchnama (seizure record)—was either absent or unreliable. The court found contradictions in witness statements and noted that witnesses examined by the prosecution did not adequately support the case, warranting the benefit of doubt to 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