THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs VIMALABEN W/O SHAMBHUBHAI CHANDUBHAI TADVI Advocate - G N VASAVA — 1676/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR030018942025
Filing Number
1676/2025
Filing Date
10-Oct-2025
Registration No
1676/2025
Registration Date
10-Oct-2025
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
11823021250728
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.VIMALABEN W/O SHAMBHUBHAI CHANDUBHAI TADVI Advocate - G N VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary Court Decision: The JMFC Sagbara acquitted Vimalabehn Shambhuabhay Tadvi of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, for allegedly possessing country liquor worth ₹1,400. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panchayat witnesses provided no corroborating evidence linking the accused to the seized liquor, and independent witness testimony was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1676/2025
Case Summary Court Decision: The JMFC Sagbara acquitted Vimalabehn Shambhuabhay Tadvi of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, for allegedly possessing country liquor worth ₹1,400. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panchayat witnesses provided no corroborating evidence linking the accused to the seized liquor, and independent witness testimony was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts