Government of Gujarat vs JILUBEN W/O NANJIBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - K G CHAVDA — 188/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100001922026
Filing Number
188/2026
Filing Date
15-01-2026
Registration No
188/2026
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
1120014250560
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
JILUBEN W/O NANJIBHAI 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 188/2026 Court Decision: The accused Jiluben W/O Nanjibhai Vaghela was acquitted of charges under Section 65(A)(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The court found insufficient evidence to prove that prohibited liquor was recovered from the accused's possession on 25/07/2025. Key Reasoning: The prosecution relied solely on one panch (witness) whose testimony merely confirmed he signed the seizure memo but provided no substantive evidence supporting the case. The court noted the absence of independent corroborating witnesses and police testimony, creating doubt about whether the seized material was actually prohibited contraband under the prohibition law. Applying established criminal law principles regarding burden of proof and witness credibility, the court determined the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case 188/2026 Court Decision: The accused Jiluben W/O Nanjibhai Vaghela was acquitted of charges under Section 65(A)(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The court found insufficient evidence to prove that prohibited liquor was recovered from the accused's possession on 25/07/2025. Key Reasoning: The prosecution relied solely on one panch (witness) whose testimony merely confirmed he signed the seizure memo but provided no substantive evidence supporting the case. The court noted the absence of independent corroborating witnesses and police testimony, creating doubt about whether the seized material was actually prohibited contraband under the prohibition law. Applying established criminal law principles regarding burden of proof and witness credibility, the court determined the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts