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
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
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
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts