Government of Gujarat vs DILIPBHAI HARSINGBHAI DAMOR Advocate - N B CHAUHAN — 109/2026
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E,116B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDH060001782026
Filing Number
109/2026
Filing Date
11-Feb-2026
Registration No
109/2026
Registration Date
11-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHANPUR
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
18-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 22-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11821014250972
Police Station
DHANPUR POLICE STATION - DAHOD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.DILIPBHAI HARSINGBHAI DAMOR Advocate - N B CHAUHAN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-May-2026
Judegement
SUMMARY The court acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) and 116(B), finding that the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession of foreign liquor recovered from the accused. The court held that recovery was not properly proved, sealing procedures were not followed, panch witnesses contradicted the prosecution in cross-examination, and no independent witnesses corroborated the case, necessitating acquittal with benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-May-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-May-2026
Final Arguments
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-May-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Apr-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 109/2026
SUMMARY The court acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) and 116(B), finding that the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession of foreign liquor recovered from the accused. The court held that recovery was not properly proved, sealing procedures were not followed, panch witnesses contradicted the prosecution in cross-examination, and no independent witnesses corroborated the case, necessitating acquittal with benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts