Government of Gujarat vs GOPALBHAI RASULBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - K G CHAVDA — 1039/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM100013262025

Case disposed

Filing Number

1039/2025

Filing Date

30-12-2025

Registration No

1039/2025

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

11202014250111

Police Station

DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

GOPALBHAI RASULBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - K G CHAVDA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

16-03-2026

Disposed

20-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

23-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

30-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court acquitted the accused Gopalbhai Rasulbhai Vaghela of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing 2 liters of illicit liquor worth ₹400, finding the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that the panchnama witness provided weak testimony without independent corroboration, and the complainant/police witness was not examined, resulting in reasonable doubt that undermined the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused Gopalbhai Rasulbhai Vaghela of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing 2 liters of illicit liquor worth ₹400, finding the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that the panchnama witness provided weak testimony without independent corroboration, and the complainant/police witness was not examined, resulting in reasonable doubt that undermined the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DHROL All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case