the state of gujarat/ m.p. jodiya, exe. magis., una vs dilip mohanbhai thakkar sindhi Advocate - Z.U.PATHAN — 444/2012

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS040012822012

Case disposed

Filing Number

444/2012

Filing Date

27-03-2012

Registration No

444/2012

Registration Date

27-03-2012

Court

TALUKA COURT, UNA

Judge

7-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

18th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

II 3047

Police Station

UNA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2012

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 114
ESSENTIAL COMMODITITES ACT, 1955 Section 3,7

Petitioner(s)

the state of gujarat/ m.p. jodiya, exe. magis., una

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

dilip mohanbhai thakkar sindhi Advocate - Z.U.PATHAN

shankarlal aashandas hemjani

Adv. Z.U.PATHAN

Hearing History

Judge: 7-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

18-04-2026

Disposed

09-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

13-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

28-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

13-02-2026

For Argument of Second party

Final Orders / Judgements

18-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary of Criminal Case No. 444/2012 Court: Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una Judge: Jayesh Kumar Kabhaibhai Khant Judgment Date: 18/04/2026 Duration: 14 years, 22 days Decision The accused Dilipbhai Mohanbhai Thakkar and Shankardas Asandas Hemjani are acquitted of charges under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for alleged unauthorized possession of 1,235 liters of blue kerosene seized on 10/01/2012. Key Reasoning The court found fatal defects in the prosecution case: 1. Missing Control Order: The prosecution failed to produce the Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act—the statutory foundation required to prove violation. Despite witnesses admitting such an order existed and governed storage/use restrictions, it was never produced. 2. Hostile Panch Witnesses: All four independent panch witnesses turned hostile, denying presence at seizure and claiming signatures were taken on pre-prepared documents without their knowledge. 3. No Proof of Possession: No documentary evidence (ownership papers, municipal license, rent agreement) established that the accused owned or exclusively possessed the godown. 4. Incomplete Investigation: No ration cardholders were identified or investigated despite prosecution claims kerosene came from them; no scene panchnama was prepared; investigation relied solely on departmental papers. 5. Procedural Lapses: Investigating Officer admitted filing chargesheet based on assumptions rather than independent verification. The court held that absent the Control Order and with serious evidentiary gaps, reasonable doubt exists, entitling the accused to acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Criminal Case No. 444/2012 Court: Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una Judge: Jayesh Kumar Kabhaibhai Khant Judgment Date: 18/04/2026 Duration: 14 years, 22 days Decision The accused Dilipbhai Mohanbhai Thakkar and Shankardas Asandas Hemjani are acquitted of charges under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for alleged unauthorized possession of 1,235 liters of blue kerosene seized on 10/01/2012. Key Reasoning The court found fatal defects in the prosecution case: 1. Missing Control Order: The prosecution failed to produce the Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act—the statutory foundation required to prove violation. Despite witnesses admitting such an order existed and governed storage/use restrictions, it was never produced. 2. Hostile Panch Witnesses: All four independent panch witnesses turned hostile, denying presence at seizure and claiming signatures were taken on pre-prepared documents without their knowledge. 3. No Proof of Possession: No documentary evidence (ownership papers, municipal license, rent agreement) established that the accused owned or exclusively possessed the godown. 4. Incomplete Investigation: No ration cardholders were identified or investigated despite prosecution claims kerosene came from them; no scene panchnama was prepared; investigation relied solely on departmental papers. 5. Procedural Lapses: Investigating Officer admitted filing chargesheet based on assumptions rather than independent verification. The court held that absent the Control Order and with serious evidentiary gaps, reasonable doubt exists, entitling the accused to acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, UNA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case