Government of Gujarat vs KAILASHBEN PARVATSINH BARIA — 201/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJLV020003162026

Filing Number

201/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

201/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, LUNAWADA

Judge

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

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 10-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAILASHBEN PARVATSINH BARIA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted the accused under Indian Penal Code Section 271 and Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the seizure of illicit liquor from the accused's residence lacked proper procedure and witness corroboration, as the five panch witnesses could not confirm their presence during the search, making the evidence inadmissible and insufficient to prove guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 201/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused under Indian Penal Code Section 271 and Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the seizure of illicit liquor from the accused's residence lacked proper procedure and witness corroboration, as the five panch witnesses could not confirm their presence during the search, making the evidence inadmissible and insufficient to prove guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case