STATE OF GUJARAT vs LILABEN MANEKBHA MANEK Advocate - J N PARMAR — 1158/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(F). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW040013262025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1158/2025
Filing Date
22-07-2025
Registration No
1158/2025
Registration Date
22-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, OKHAMANDAL
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11185005250150
Police Station
MITHAPUR POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
LILABEN MANEKBHA MANEK Advocate - J N PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
Restored
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 07-03-2026 | Restored | |
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 30-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused Lilaiben Maneksha Manek of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65-F (manufacturing illegal alcohol) for lack of sufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish its case because the five witnesses supporting the seizure only provided their signatures on the seizure document without substantiating the actual evidence, and the investigating officer's testimony was unsupported by corroborating witnesses or documents proving the contraband's origin from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused Lilaiben Maneksha Manek of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65-F (manufacturing illegal alcohol) for lack of sufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish its case because the five witnesses supporting the seizure only provided their signatures on the seizure document without substantiating the actual evidence, and the investigating officer's testimony was unsupported by corroborating witnesses or documents proving the contraband's origin from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts