Government of Gujarat vs PANKAJ @ PAKO @ DALI S/O BHALAJI RANAJI THAKOR Advocate - S R PANCHAL — 23/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65 AA, 81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGN030000152025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
23/2025
Filing Date
02-01-2025
Registration No
23/2025
Registration Date
02-01-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEHGAM
Judge
2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11216012240253
Police Station
RAKHIYAL POLICE STATION - GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PANKAJ @ PAKO @ DALI S/O BHALAJI RANAJI THAKOR Advocate - S R PANCHAL
MADHAJI S/O RANAJI GAGAJI THAKOR
Adv. S R PANCHAL
NARESHKUMAR @ TINAJI S/O SARDARSINH UDAJI THAKOR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 02-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 02-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 17-11-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 23 of 2025, Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehgaam Decision: The court acquitted all three accused persons under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(aa) and 81, citing insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt as the seized foreign liquor bottles lacked manufacturing details, batch numbers, and packaging dates, and independent witness testimony supporting the seizure was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 23 of 2025, Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehgaam Decision: The court acquitted all three accused persons under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(aa) and 81, citing insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt as the seized foreign liquor bottles lacked manufacturing details, batch numbers, and packaging dates, and independent witness testimony supporting the seizure was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts