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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM100013262025

Filing Number

1039/2025

Filing Date

30-Dec-2025

Registration No

1039/2025

Registration Date

30-Dec-2025

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

11202014250111

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.GOPALBHAI RASULBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - K G CHAVDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  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. 23-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 30-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 30-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1039/2025

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case