Government of Gujarat vs GOPALBHAI RASUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - K G CHAVDA — 1045/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100013322025
Filing Number
1045/2025
Filing Date
30-12-2025
Registration No
1045/2025
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
11202014250319
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
GOPALBHAI RASUBHAI VAGHELA 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: Criminal Case 1045/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted defendant Gopalbhai Rasubhai Vaghela of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A). The prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Although prohibited liquor (3 liters valued at Rs. 600) was allegedly seized from the accused's possession on 25/04/2025, the court found critical evidentiary gaps. The sole witness (Panch Farukbhai Rajakbhai Dosani) only testified about signing the seizure memo but provided no substantive evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The absence of independent witnesses and police testimony further weakened the prosecution's evidence, creating reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case 1045/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted defendant Gopalbhai Rasubhai Vaghela of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A). The prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Although prohibited liquor (3 liters valued at Rs. 600) was allegedly seized from the accused's possession on 25/04/2025, the court found critical evidentiary gaps. The sole witness (Panch Farukbhai Rajakbhai Dosani) only testified about signing the seizure memo but provided no substantive evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The absence of independent witnesses and police testimony further weakened the prosecution's evidence, creating reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts