THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs REKHABEN VALJIBHAI MITHAPARA Advocate - M H TRIVEDI, H D TRIVEDI, H D TRIVEDIB P PARMAR, — 31/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN090000382026
e-Filing Number
13-01-2026
Filing Number
31/2026
Filing Date
16-01-2026
Registration No
31/2026
Registration Date
16-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, UMRALA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
11th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198059250535
Police Station
UMRALA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
REKHABEN VALJIBHAI MITHAPARA Advocate - M H TRIVEDI, H D TRIVEDI, H D TRIVEDIB P PARMAR,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 16-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 09-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 20-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 31/2026 The court acquitted accused Rekhaben Valjibhai Mithapara of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove exclusive conscious possession of illicit liquor, as the panchnama (seizure document) lacked credible corroboration from the panchs (witnesses) who neither confirmed the alleged recovery nor identified the accused with the seized material. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 31/2026 The court acquitted accused Rekhaben Valjibhai Mithapara of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove exclusive conscious possession of illicit liquor, as the panchnama (seizure document) lacked credible corroboration from the panchs (witnesses) who neither confirmed the alleged recovery nor identified the accused with the seized material. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts