Government of Gujarat vs VIPULBHAI @ LALO RAMABHAI PATEL Advocate - A B KALYANI — 20/2023

Case under Public Gambling Act, 1867 [section 1 18] Section 4,5,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH090000552023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

20/2023

Filing Date

06-01-2023

Registration No

20/2023

Registration Date

06-01-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUDHA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Acts & Sections

PUBLIC GAMBLING ACT, 1867 [SECTION 1 18] Section 4,5,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

VIPULBHAI @ LALO RAMABHAI PATEL Advocate - A B KALYANI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

06-03-2026

Disposed

18-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

20-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

23-12-2025

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

04-12-2025

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted all 13 accused individuals of gambling charges under the Gambling Act, finding insufficient evidence and procedural defects in the prosecution's case. The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish a sound legal foundation for conviction, noting absence of independent witness testimonies, reliance solely on police statements, and gaps in documentary evidence regarding ownership of the venue. The court held that without credible corroborating evidence, the charges could not be sustained and ordered the release of seized property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted all 13 accused individuals of gambling charges under the Gambling Act, finding insufficient evidence and procedural defects in the prosecution's case. The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish a sound legal foundation for conviction, noting absence of independent witness testimonies, reliance solely on police statements, and gaps in documentary evidence regarding ownership of the venue. The court held that without credible corroborating evidence, the charges could not be sustained and ordered the release of seized property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUDHA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case