Government of GUJARAT vs GULABSINGBHAI JAYANTBHAI PADVI Advocate - R A VASAVA — 1500/2024
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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR030017832024
Filing Number
1500/2024
Filing Date
31-08-2024
Registration No
1500/2024
Registration Date
31-08-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, SAGBARA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11823021240851
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
GULABSINGBHAI JAYANTBHAI PADVI Advocate - R A VASAVA
JAYDIPBHAI LALSINGBHAI VASAVA
JENTIBHAI BHARATBHAI VASAVA
DILAVARBHAI DHARASINGBHAI VASAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 03-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 28-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Sagbara Judicial Magistrate acquitted all five accused persons of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (sections 65(A)(E), 98(2), 81, 116(B)) for alleged possession and distribution of prohibited foreign liquor worth ₹78,800. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and lacking independent corroboration—particularly noting that no panchas (independent witnesses) provided substantive evidence supporting the police case, and the police officer's testimony alone constituted only corroborative evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Sagbara Judicial Magistrate acquitted all five accused persons of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (sections 65(A)(E), 98(2), 81, 116(B)) for alleged possession and distribution of prohibited foreign liquor worth ₹78,800. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and lacking independent corroboration—particularly noting that no panchas (independent witnesses) provided substantive evidence supporting the police case, and the police officer's testimony alone constituted only corroborative evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts