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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN110005602023
Filing Number
463/2023
Filing Date
28-08-2023
Registration No
463/2023
Registration Date
28-08-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, BHESAN
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11203007230040
Police Station
BHESAN POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Ankalesh Vidhaynand Podar
Mohamad Zuber Mohamad Maksud Shekh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 14-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 06-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 24-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 15-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts