State of Gujarat vs BHIKHUBEN VIKRAMBHAI DHOLKIYA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 324/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070005712026

Case disposed

Filing Number

324/2026

Filing Date

18-02-2026

Registration No

324/2026

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

11198042251058

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)

BHIKHUBEN VIKRAMBHAI DHOLKIYA 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

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Bhikhuben Vikrambhai Dholkiya The court acquitted the accused Bhikhuben Vikrambhai Dholkiya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution's case unproven. The court noted critical deficiencies in evidence, including the panchnama (seizure document) being inadequately corroborated, absence of independent witness testimony, and lack of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) reports confirming the seized substance as liquor. The court applied the principle that when panchnama evidence is questionable and panch witnesses fail to substantiate the complainant's case, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Bhikhuben Vikrambhai Dholkiya The court acquitted the accused Bhikhuben Vikrambhai Dholkiya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution's case unproven. The court noted critical deficiencies in evidence, including the panchnama (seizure document) being inadequately corroborated, absence of independent witness testimony, and lack of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) reports confirming the seized substance as liquor. The court applied the principle that when panchnama evidence is questionable and panch witnesses fail to substantiate the complainant's case, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 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