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
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
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
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 15-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts