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

Case disposed

Filing Number

524/2025

Filing Date

16-12-2025

Registration No

524/2025

Registration Date

16-12-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

11th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11213020250482

Police Station

JAMKANDORANA POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

ANOPSINH RAVUBHA PADHIYAR Advocate - P R KOYANI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

11-03-2026

Disposed

27-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

26-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

13-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

29-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case