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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJLV020003172026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
202/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
202/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, LUNAWADA
Judge
4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SUMITRABEN KIRANSINH PARVATSINH BARIA
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 05-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 02-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 24-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts