THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SANGITABEN BHUPATBHAI MATHASULIYA Advocate - B P PARMAR — 82/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN090001012026
e-Filing Number
21-02-2026
Filing Number
82/2026
Filing Date
21-Feb-2026
Registration No
82/2026
Registration Date
21-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, UMRALA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198059260028
Police Station
UMRALA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SANGITABEN BHUPATBHAI MATHASULIYA Advocate - B P PARMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted Sangitaben Bhupatbhai Mathasuliya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(F), finding insufficient evidence that the alcohol-manufacturing materials were in her exclusive conscious possession. The court noted that the panch witnesses failed to corroborate the police panchnama (seizure report), and no FSL report confirmed the seized items were for alcohol production, thus benefiting the accused from reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Apr-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Apr-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 82/2026
The court acquitted Sangitaben Bhupatbhai Mathasuliya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(F), finding insufficient evidence that the alcohol-manufacturing materials were in her exclusive conscious possession. The court noted that the panch witnesses failed to corroborate the police panchnama (seizure report), and no FSL report confirmed the seized items were for alcohol production, thus benefiting the accused from reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts