THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SANGITABEN BHUPATBHAI MATHASULIYA Advocate - B P PARMAR — 84/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN090001032026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

21-02-2026

Filing Number

84/2026

Filing Date

21-02-2026

Registration No

84/2026

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

11198059260047

Police Station

UMRALA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65F

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

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

16-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: 84/2026 Court Decision: The accused, Sangitaben Bhupatbhai Mathasuliya, was acquitted of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(F) for manufacturing illicit liquor. The court found insufficient evidence to establish exclusive and conscious possession of the alleged contraband material, as the panchas (witnesses) failed to corroborate the seizure narrative in their testimonies. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt because the panch witnesses did not substantiate the police's account of the seizure, and no FSL report was produced confirming the nature of the confiscated material. The court applied established precedents requiring exclusive conscious possession and found the evidence circumstantial and lacking corroboration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 84/2026 Court Decision: The accused, Sangitaben Bhupatbhai Mathasuliya, was acquitted of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(F) for manufacturing illicit liquor. The court found insufficient evidence to establish exclusive and conscious possession of the alleged contraband material, as the panchas (witnesses) failed to corroborate the seizure narrative in their testimonies. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt because the panch witnesses did not substantiate the police's account of the seizure, and no FSL report was produced confirming the nature of the confiscated material. The court applied established precedents requiring exclusive conscious possession and found the evidence circumstantial and lacking corroboration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, UMRALA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case