Government of Gujarat vs SUMITRABEN KIRANSINH PARVATSINH BARIA — 202/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJLV020003172026

Filing Number

202/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

202/2026

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.SUMITRABEN KIRANSINH PARVATSINH BARIA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary Case No.: C.C.No.202/2026 | Court: A.D. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lunavada Decision: The court acquitted the accused under IPC Section 271 (Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65) of charges involving illegal possession of domestic liquor without valid permit at his residence. The court found that the prosecution's case was based on weak evidence, including witness testimony from untrained panchas (witnesses) who could not credibly corroborate the recovery, and the investigation lacked proper corroboration required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 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. 202/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No.: C.C.No.202/2026 | Court: A.D. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lunavada Decision: The court acquitted the accused under IPC Section 271 (Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65) of charges involving illegal possession of domestic liquor without valid permit at his residence. The court found that the prosecution's case was based on weak evidence, including witness testimony from untrained panchas (witnesses) who could not credibly corroborate the recovery, and the investigation lacked proper corroboration required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case