Government of Gujarat vs MADHUBEN W/O VEJALBHAI HURIYA Advocate - N B CHAVDA — 170/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM100001742026

Case disposed

Filing Number

170/2026

Filing Date

15-01-2026

Registration No

170/2026

Registration Date

15-01-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHROL

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11202014250528

Police Station

DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

MADHUBEN W/O VEJALBHAI HURIYA Advocate - N B CHAVDA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

16-03-2026

Disposed

20-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

15-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: Criminal Case 170/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhrola, acquitted the accused Madhuben W/O Vejalbhai Huriya of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65-P(A)(A). The court found insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused illegally possessed 3 liters of prohibited liquor valued at ₹600. Key Reasoning: The prosecution's case relied primarily on a panch (witness) statement, but the witness merely confirmed signing the panchnama without providing substantive testimony supporting the charge. The court noted the absence of independent witnesses and police testimony, and found critical gaps in the evidentiary chain that created reasonable doubt about whether the seized material constituted prohibited substances under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case 170/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhrola, acquitted the accused Madhuben W/O Vejalbhai Huriya of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65-P(A)(A). The court found insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused illegally possessed 3 liters of prohibited liquor valued at ₹600. Key Reasoning: The prosecution's case relied primarily on a panch (witness) statement, but the witness merely confirmed signing the panchnama without providing substantive testimony supporting the charge. The court noted the absence of independent witnesses and police testimony, and found critical gaps in the evidentiary chain that created reasonable doubt about whether the seized material constituted prohibited substances under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DHROL All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case