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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA,81

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

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

28-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case