State of Gujarat vs SANJAYBHAI BABUBHAI MAKVANA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 322/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005692026
Filing Number
322/2026
Filing Date
18-Feb-2026
Registration No
322/2026
Registration Date
18-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
11198042250891
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SANJAYBHAI BABUBHAI MAKVANA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted defendant Sanjaybhai Babubhai Makvana of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, finding that the State of Gujarat failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the panchnama (official seizure document) was not properly corroborated, the panch witnesses' testimony did not support the prosecution's allegations, no FSL (forensic) report confirmed the seized substance was prohibited liquor, and independent witnesses were not examined. Applying established precedents, the court held that when panch witnesses fail to substantiate the case and doubt exists about the seized materials, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt and acquittal. 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
-
18-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 322/2026
The court acquitted defendant Sanjaybhai Babubhai Makvana of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, finding that the State of Gujarat failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the panchnama (official seizure document) was not properly corroborated, the panch witnesses' testimony did not support the prosecution's allegations, no FSL (forensic) report confirmed the seized substance was prohibited liquor, and independent witnesses were not examined. Applying established precedents, the court held that when panch witnesses fail to substantiate the case and doubt exists about the seized materials, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt and acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts