Government of Gujarat vs SANTABEN W/O RAJUBHAI PARESHA Advocate - N B CHAVDA — 189/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM100001932026

Filing Number

189/2026

Filing Date

15-Jan-2026

Registration No

189/2026

Registration Date

15-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHROL

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11202014250540

Police Station

DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANTABEN W/O RAJUBHAI PARESHA Advocate - N B CHAVDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Case 189/2026 The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Drol, acquitted Santaben (wife of Rajubhai Paresha) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the sole witness (a panchnama signatory) provided no substantive corroboration of the alleged offense, and the absence of independent police witness testimony, combined with procedural irregularities, created sufficient reasonable doubt to warrant acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 15-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 15-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 189/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case 189/2026 The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Drol, acquitted Santaben (wife of Rajubhai Paresha) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the sole witness (a panchnama signatory) provided no substantive corroboration of the alleged offense, and the absence of independent police witness testimony, combined with procedural irregularities, created sufficient reasonable doubt to warrant acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case