Government of Gujarat vs HIRENBHAI PRAFULBHAI SEJPAL Advocate - C R BHARADA — 1180/2022
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(E),116(B),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 08th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN060012932022
Filing Number
1180/2022
Filing Date
27-06-2022
Registration No
1180/2022
Registration Date
27-06-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, MALIA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11203036220090
Police Station
MALIYA HATINA POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
HIRENBHAI PRAFULBHAI SEJPAL Advocate - C R BHARADA
PRAFIL LALITKUMAR TANNA
Adv. C R BHARADA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 23-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1180/2022 The court acquitted three accused persons charged under the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegal possession and sale of English liquor. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as key witnesses (panchas) were not properly examined, the chain of custody of seized materials was not adequately proven, and critical procedural requirements were not met. The court found that prosecution evidence lacked corroboration from independent witnesses and was solely dependent on police testimony, insufficient to secure conviction under the stringent legal standards required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1180/2022 The court acquitted three accused persons charged under the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegal possession and sale of English liquor. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as key witnesses (panchas) were not properly examined, the chain of custody of seized materials was not adequately proven, and critical procedural requirements were not met. The court found that prosecution evidence lacked corroboration from independent witnesses and was solely dependent on police testimony, insufficient to secure conviction under the stringent legal standards required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts