Government of Gujarat vs LAKSHMIBEN URFE LAKSHMIBEN W/O HARESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - N B CHAVDA — 171/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100001752026
Filing Number
171/2026
Filing Date
15-01-2026
Registration No
171/2026
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
11202014250432
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
LAKSHMIBEN URFE LAKSHMIBEN W/O HARESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI VAGHELA 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 171/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Lakshmiben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court found that the sole witness (a panchnama signatory) did not substantiate the prosecution's allegations, providing only bare testimony about signing the document without meaningful corroboration. The court emphasized that witness credibility and quality of evidence matter more than mere quantity, and absent independent supporting evidence, the prosecution could not adequately link the prohibited liquor to the defendant's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case 171/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Lakshmiben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court found that the sole witness (a panchnama signatory) did not substantiate the prosecution's allegations, providing only bare testimony about signing the document without meaningful corroboration. The court emphasized that witness credibility and quality of evidence matter more than mere quantity, and absent independent supporting evidence, the prosecution could not adequately link the prohibited liquor to the defendant's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts