Government of Gujarat vs HIRABEN W/O GAGJIBHAI JAKHANIYA Advocate - K G CHAVDA — 1033/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100013202025
Filing Number
1033/2025
Filing Date
30-12-2025
Registration No
1033/2025
Registration Date
30-12-2025
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
11202014250013
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
HIRABEN W/O GAGJIBHAI JAKHANIYA Advocate - K G CHAVDA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 23-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 30-12-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Hiraben (Case 1033/2025) The court acquitted the accused, Hiraben w/o Gagjibhai Jakhaniya, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for alleged illegal possession of 2 liters of liquor worth ₹400 without proper permit. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole witness (panchnama witness) could not substantiate the charges and merely testified to signing the panchnama without knowledge of its contents. The court concluded that absent credible independent corroboration and given critical gaps in the prosecution's evidence, the accused was entitled to acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Hiraben (Case 1033/2025) The court acquitted the accused, Hiraben w/o Gagjibhai Jakhaniya, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for alleged illegal possession of 2 liters of liquor worth ₹400 without proper permit. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole witness (panchnama witness) could not substantiate the charges and merely testified to signing the panchnama without knowledge of its contents. The court concluded that absent credible independent corroboration and given critical gaps in the prosecution's evidence, the accused was entitled to acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts