THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs UDAYBHAI BABBHAI KHAVAD Advocate - B H CHHATRAVALA — 2787/2023
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(E),116(B),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBT030036122023
Filing Number
2787/2023
Filing Date
03-10-2023
Registration No
2787/2023
Registration Date
03-10-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, GADHADA
Judge
2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11190004230902
Police Station
GADHADA POLICE STATION – BOTAD DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
UDAYBHAI BABBHAI KHAVAD Advocate - B H CHHATRAVALA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 04-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 20-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 20-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 2787/23 The court acquitted all three accused (Gopalabhai, Kuldipabhai, and Udayabhai) of charges under the Prohibition Act and Indian Penal Code sections relating to illegal foreign liquor possession and sale. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt because the panch witnesses (village elders) who allegedly witnessed the seizure provided contradictory testimony unsupported by documentary evidence, and the investigating officer's evidence regarding the seizure procedure and chain of custody was inadequate to prove guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 2787/23 The court acquitted all three accused (Gopalabhai, Kuldipabhai, and Udayabhai) of charges under the Prohibition Act and Indian Penal Code sections relating to illegal foreign liquor possession and sale. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt because the panch witnesses (village elders) who allegedly witnessed the seizure provided contradictory testimony unsupported by documentary evidence, and the investigating officer's evidence regarding the seizure procedure and chain of custody was inadequate to prove guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts