THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs JAGDISHSINH JAYENDRASINH JADEJA Advocate - P R KOYANI — 526/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ080006662025
Filing Number
526/2025
Filing Date
19-Dec-2025
Registration No
526/2025
Registration Date
19-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213020250520
Police Station
JAMKANDORANA POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.JAGDISHSINH JAYENDRASINH JADEJA Advocate - P R KOYANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
Judegement
Summary The court acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the investigation procedure was tainted, the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution, and critical evidentiary gaps existed, particularly regarding the chain of custody and independent witness corroboration of the alleged contraband recovery. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-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
-
01-Jan-2026
Framing Of Charge/Plea
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 526/2025
Summary The court acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the investigation procedure was tainted, the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution, and critical evidentiary gaps existed, particularly regarding the chain of custody and independent witness corroboration of the alleged contraband recovery. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts