Government of Gujarat vs ASHOKBHAI HAKABHAI PATADIYA Advocate - N H LALANI — 919/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 28th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM040011952025
Filing Number
919/2025
Filing Date
06-08-2025
Registration No
919/2025
Registration Date
06-08-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11202013240262
Police Station
SETHVADALA POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ASHOKBHAI HAKABHAI PATADIYA Advocate - N H LALANI
HARPALSINH DILIPSINH JADEJA
Adv. N H LALANI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 02-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 30-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 25-11-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 919/2025 The Jamnagar Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused—Ashokbhai Hakabhai Patadiya and Harpalsinh Dilipsinh Jadeja—of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A) and 81, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While police witnesses testified that illicit liquor was recovered from the accused's possession during a patrol, the court found critical evidentiary gaps: the panch (witness) evidence did not corroborate the recovery, no independent witnesses were examined, FSL reports were absent, and the seizure panchnama lacked sufficient independent verification to establish that prohibited alcohol was indeed recovered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 919/2025 The Jamnagar Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused—Ashokbhai Hakabhai Patadiya and Harpalsinh Dilipsinh Jadeja—of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A) and 81, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While police witnesses testified that illicit liquor was recovered from the accused's possession during a patrol, the court found critical evidentiary gaps: the panch (witness) evidence did not corroborate the recovery, no independent witnesses were examined, FSL reports were absent, and the seizure panchnama lacked sufficient independent verification to establish that prohibited alcohol was indeed recovered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts