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

Case disposed

Filing Number

322/2026

Filing Date

18-02-2026

Registration No

322/2026

Registration Date

18-02-2026

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

11198042250891

Police Station

PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

State of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

SANJAYBHAI BABUBHAI MAKVANA Advocate - A B JOSHI

Hearing History

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

27-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case