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

Case disposed

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

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

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

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

17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case