Government of India vs PRASAD PAPPU ASHOKBHAI RAICHUR(PANCHOLI) Advocate - G N VASAVA — 346/2024

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(E),98(2),81,116(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNR030005182024

Filing Number

346/2024

Filing Date

17-May-2024

Registration No

346/2024

Registration Date

17-May-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, SAGBARA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11823021240004

Police Station

SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(E),98(2),81,116(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of India

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRASAD PAPPU ASHOKBHAI RAICHUR(PANCHOLI) Advocate - G N VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted accused Pappu alias Ashokbhai Raychhur Pancholi of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, sections 65(A)(E), 98(2), 81, and 116(B), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to produce independent corroborating witnesses and relied primarily on police testimony without substantiating documentary evidence, making it impossible to establish that the accused possessed the seized contraband with criminal intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 23-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 06-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 11-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 20-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 01-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 01-Apr-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 04-Feb-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 21-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 09-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 23-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 21-Sep-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 03-Aug-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 15-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 17-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 346/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted accused Pappu alias Ashokbhai Raychhur Pancholi of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, sections 65(A)(E), 98(2), 81, and 116(B), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to produce independent corroborating witnesses and relied primarily on police testimony without substantiating documentary evidence, making it impossible to establish that the accused possessed the seized contraband with criminal intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case