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
21-02-2026
Registration No
82/2026
Registration Date
21-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, UMRALA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198059260028
Police Station
UMRALA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SANGITABEN BHUPATBHAI MATHASULIYA Advocate - B P PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 04-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 27-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 20-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts