GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT @ THE STATE vs DHIRAJBA SULTANJI VAGELA Advocate - K N GAGIYA — 1342/2023

Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030016782023

Filing Number

1342/2023

Filing Date

25-Apr-2023

Registration No

1342/2023

Registration Date

25-Apr-2023

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

1296

Police Station

MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2022

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT @ THE STATE

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DHIRAJBA SULTANJI VAGELA Advocate - K N GAGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Judegement

    The court acquitted the accused Dhirajba Sultanji Vagela of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 61F, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panch witnesses did not corroborate the FIR details, independent corroboration was lacking, and there were inconsistencies in the police testimony during cross-examination regarding vehicle details and witness identification. Applying established legal principles requiring independent corroboration when panchas are present in searches, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt and ordered her acquittal while directing disposal of the seized alcohol after appeal period as per regulations. 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. 22-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 15-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 01-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 08-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 20-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 19-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 24-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 27-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 06-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 19-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 16-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 04-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 12-Jul-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 24-May-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 18-Apr-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 16-Feb-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 13-Dec-2023

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 01-Nov-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 13-Oct-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 25-Aug-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 01-Jul-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 29-May-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  30. 13-May-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 25-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1342/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused Dhirajba Sultanji Vagela of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 61F, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panch witnesses did not corroborate the FIR details, independent corroboration was lacking, and there were inconsistencies in the police testimony during cross-examination regarding vehicle details and witness identification. Applying established legal principles requiring independent corroboration when panchas are present in searches, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt and ordered her acquittal while directing disposal of the seized alcohol after appeal period as per regulations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case