GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs HARESHBHAI BHUPATBHAI BARIA Advocate - N S MALVI — 286/2024

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA, 81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 02nd April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPM050003642024

Case disposed

Filing Number

286/2024

Filing Date

09-02-2024

Registration No

286/2024

Registration Date

09-02-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA

Judge

1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

02nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

FIR Details

FIR Number

864

Police Station

SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA, 81

Petitioner(s)

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

HARESHBHAI BHUPATBHAI BARIA Advocate - N S MALVI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

02-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

13-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

09-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

07-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

02-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: CC 286/2024 Decision: The court acquitted both accused (Hareshbhai Bhupatbhai Baria and Natvarbhai Amrabhai Baria) of charges under sections 65AA and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case due to critical evidentiary gaps: the panch witnesses turned hostile and denied the seizure occurred, no documentary proof of property ownership was provided, no independent locality witnesses were recorded, and no forensic report verified the seized liquid was genuine Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 286/2024 Decision: The court acquitted both accused (Hareshbhai Bhupatbhai Baria and Natvarbhai Amrabhai Baria) of charges under sections 65AA and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case due to critical evidentiary gaps: the panch witnesses turned hostile and denied the seizure occurred, no documentary proof of property ownership was provided, no independent locality witnesses were recorded, and no forensic report verified the seized liquid was genuine Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case