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
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
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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts