Government of Gujarat vs Ankalesh Vidhaynand Podar — 463/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN110005602023

Filing Number

463/2023

Filing Date

28-Aug-2023

Registration No

463/2023

Registration Date

28-Aug-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, BHESAN

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

16-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203007230040

Police Station

BHESAN POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,114

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ankalesh Vidhaynand Podar

  2. 2.Mohamad Zuber Mohamad Maksud Shekh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-May-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Ankalesh Vidhaynand Podar and Mohamad Zuber Mohamad Maksud Shekh (463/2023) The court acquitted both accused of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 406, 420, and 114 (criminal breach of trust, cheating, and abetment). The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution's evidence, recovery panchnamas were not properly proved, and no credible documentary evidence linked the accused to the alleged theft of jewelry and valuables. The court found that evidence quality, not quantity, determines adequacy under the Indian Evidence Act, and absent reliable corroborating proof, the case could not sustain conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 14-May-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 06-May-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 24-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 15-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 12-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 28-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 25-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 04-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 30-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 16-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 05-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 26-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 12-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 01-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 22-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 29-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 03-Jul-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 16-Jun-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  30. 30-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  31. 07-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  32. 25-Mar-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  33. 18-Feb-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  34. 28-Jan-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  35. 17-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  36. 03-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  37. 19-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  38. 09-Sep-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  39. 05-Aug-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  40. 01-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  41. 11-Jun-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  42. 08-May-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  43. 03-Apr-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  44. 13-Mar-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  45. 14-Feb-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  46. 17-Jan-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  47. 20-Dec-2023

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  48. 20-Nov-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  49. 17-Oct-2023

    Order

  50. 17-Oct-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  51. 25-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  52. 28-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 463/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Ankalesh Vidhaynand Podar and Mohamad Zuber Mohamad Maksud Shekh (463/2023) The court acquitted both accused of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 406, 420, and 114 (criminal breach of trust, cheating, and abetment). The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution's evidence, recovery panchnamas were not properly proved, and no credible documentary evidence linked the accused to the alleged theft of jewelry and valuables. The court found that evidence quality, not quantity, determines adequacy under the Indian Evidence Act, and absent reliable corroborating proof, the case could not sustain conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case