State of Gujarat vs GEETABEN DULABHAI HIRABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 350/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070006102026
Filing Number
350/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
350/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
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
11198042260004
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
GEETABEN DULABHAI HIRABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 06-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 350/2026 The court acquitted defendant Geetaben Dulabhai Hirabhai Vaghela of charges under the Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no independent witness corroboration, inconsistent witness statements, absence of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) reports confirming the seized substance was liquor, and inadequate documentation of the seized materials. The judge applied established precedent that when panchnama (official search record) lacks credibility and corroborating evidence is insufficient, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 350/2026 The court acquitted defendant Geetaben Dulabhai Hirabhai Vaghela of charges under the Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no independent witness corroboration, inconsistent witness statements, absence of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) reports confirming the seized substance was liquor, and inadequate documentation of the seized materials. The judge applied established precedent that when panchnama (official search record) lacks credibility and corroborating evidence is insufficient, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts