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
Filing Number
324/2026
Filing Date
18-Feb-2026
Registration No
324/2026
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
11198042251058
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHIKHUBEN VIKRAMBHAI DHOLKIYA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
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. 324/2026
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.
Explore other courts