Government of Gujarat vs KAVIBHAI VAKSHIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - N B CHAVDA — 173/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100001772026
Filing Number
173/2026
Filing Date
15-01-2026
Registration No
173/2026
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
11202014250634
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KAVIBHAI VAKSHIBHAI 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 173/2026 The Judicial Magistrate First Class in Dhole acquitted accused Kavibhai Vakshibhai Vaghela of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although prohibited liquor (5 liters, value ₹1000) was allegedly found in the accused's possession on 25/08/2025, the court noted significant evidentiary gaps—particularly that the only witness (panchnama signatory) merely confirmed signing the document without corroborating material facts, and no independent police witnesses testified. The court held that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient credibility and consistency to meet the requisite standard of proof in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case 173/2026 The Judicial Magistrate First Class in Dhole acquitted accused Kavibhai Vakshibhai Vaghela of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although prohibited liquor (5 liters, value ₹1000) was allegedly found in the accused's possession on 25/08/2025, the court noted significant evidentiary gaps—particularly that the only witness (panchnama signatory) merely confirmed signing the document without corroborating material facts, and no independent police witnesses testified. The court held that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient credibility and consistency to meet the requisite standard of proof in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts