Government of Gujarat vs NITESHBHAI LADHUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - K G CHAVDA — 179/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100001832026
Filing Number
179/2026
Filing Date
15-01-2026
Registration No
179/2026
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
11202014250431
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
NITESHBHAI LADHUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - K G 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 179/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholka acquitted accused Niteshbhai Ladhubhai Vaghela of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole panchnama witness provided no substantive support for the allegation, and no independent police witnesses testified. Key Reasoning: The court found that the complainant's case lacked credibility through proper evidence. The panchnama (official record) witness merely confirmed signing the document without providing details supporting the charge that prohibited liquor was recovered from the accused's possession on June 8, 2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case 179/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholka acquitted accused Niteshbhai Ladhubhai Vaghela of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole panchnama witness provided no substantive support for the allegation, and no independent police witnesses testified. Key Reasoning: The court found that the complainant's case lacked credibility through proper evidence. The panchnama (official record) witness merely confirmed signing the document without providing details supporting the charge that prohibited liquor was recovered from the accused's possession on June 8, 2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts