THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ANOPSINH RAVUBHA PADHIYAR Advocate - P R KOYANI — 524/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ080006642025
Filing Number
524/2025
Filing Date
16-Dec-2025
Registration No
524/2025
Registration Date
16-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213020250482
Police Station
JAMKANDORANA POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.ANOPSINH RAVUBHA PADHIYAR Advocate - P R KOYANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
The Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Jamkandorna acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural defects in the investigation and lack of corroborating witness evidence. The court held that without independent panchas supporting the seizure of illicit liquor and the absence of proper documentation, the charge of illegal possession and sale of alcohol could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Feb-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 524/2025
The Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Jamkandorna acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural defects in the investigation and lack of corroborating witness evidence. The court held that without independent panchas supporting the seizure of illicit liquor and the absence of proper documentation, the charge of illegal possession and sale of alcohol could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts