Government Of Gujarat vs Kamleshbhai Ashwinbhai Tadavi Advocate - M K TADVI — 209/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,98-2. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR050002152026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
209/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Registration No
209/2026
Registration Date
20-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, TILAKWADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
FIR Details
FIR Number
11823025251081
Police Station
TILAKWADA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government Of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Kamleshbhai Ashwinbhai Tadavi Advocate - M K TADVI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 10-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 19-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 20-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Tilakwada First Class Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Kamleshbhai Ashwinbhai Tadvai of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A)98(2) for allegedly possessing and transporting illegal whiskey. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that prosecution witnesses (panchas) failed to corroborate the FIR, no independent corroborating witnesses were examined, no FSL report was submitted, and critical details like panchas' names and vehicle information were missing from the FIR, warranting acquittal with benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Tilakwada First Class Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Kamleshbhai Ashwinbhai Tadvai of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A)98(2) for allegedly possessing and transporting illegal whiskey. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that prosecution witnesses (panchas) failed to corroborate the FIR, no independent corroborating witnesses were examined, no FSL report was submitted, and critical details like panchas' names and vehicle information were missing from the FIR, warranting acquittal with benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts