GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT @ THE STATE vs HARESH SALU KOLI Advocate - K N GAGIYA — 167/2019

Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030002132019

Filing Number

167/2019

Filing Date

05-Feb-2019

Registration No

167/2019

Registration Date

05-Feb-2019

Court

TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA

Judge

3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 18-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

5138

Police Station

MUNDRA MARINE POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT @ THE STATE

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARESH SALU KOLI Advocate - K N GAGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Judegement

    CASE SUMMARY The court acquitted defendant Haresh Salu Koli of charges under the Prohibition Act (Section 65(F)) for alleged illegal liquor manufacturing. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because: (1) the panchas (witnesses) who signed the search panchnama did not corroborate the prosecution's narrative in their testimony; (2) critical procedural deficiencies existed—vehicle registration numbers were not mentioned, panchas' names were omitted from the FIR, and no independent witnesses were recorded despite the search occurring in a public area; and (3) the seized materials and recovery lacked sufficient independent corroboration. Applying established precedent requiring pancha testimony to support police evidence in such cases, the court found reasonable doubt and granted the accused the benefit thereof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 26-May-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 25-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 02-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 21-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 19-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 20-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 22-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 05-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 03-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  13. 13-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  14. 06-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  15. 04-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  16. 09-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  17. 18-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  18. 29-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  19. 06-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  20. 13-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  21. 14-Sep-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  22. 20-Jun-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  23. 31-May-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  24. 29-Mar-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  25. 29-Dec-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 30-Sep-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 08-Jul-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 13-Jun-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 02-May-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  30. 07-Mar-2022

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  31. 10-Jan-2022

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  32. 29-Nov-2021

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  33. 11-Oct-2021

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  34. 09-Aug-2021

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  35. 14-Jun-2021

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  36. 26-Apr-2021

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  37. 01-Mar-2021

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  38. 01-Jan-2021

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  39. 20-Oct-2020

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  40. 07-Sep-2020

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  41. 23-Jul-2020

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  42. 23-Jun-2020

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  43. 23-Apr-2020

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  44. 24-Feb-2020

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  45. 21-Feb-2020

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  46. 07-Oct-2019

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  47. 03-Jun-2019

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  48. 29-Mar-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 05-Feb-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 167/2019

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY The court acquitted defendant Haresh Salu Koli of charges under the Prohibition Act (Section 65(F)) for alleged illegal liquor manufacturing. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because: (1) the panchas (witnesses) who signed the search panchnama did not corroborate the prosecution's narrative in their testimony; (2) critical procedural deficiencies existed—vehicle registration numbers were not mentioned, panchas' names were omitted from the FIR, and no independent witnesses were recorded despite the search occurring in a public area; and (3) the seized materials and recovery lacked sufficient independent corroboration. Applying established precedent requiring pancha testimony to support police evidence in such cases, the court found reasonable doubt and granted the accused the benefit thereof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case