Government of Gujarat vs rashilaben nagjibhai dangar Advocate - A R BAMBHAVA — 103/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ100001382026
e-Filing Number
08-10-2025
Filing Number
103/2026
Filing Date
03-Feb-2026
Registration No
103/2026
Registration Date
03-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PADDHARI
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213042250301
Police Station
PADDHARI POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.rashilaben nagjibhai dangar Advocate - A R BAMBHAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused, Shrilaben w/o Nagjibhai Dangar, of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for illegal possession of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing critical procedural flaws including: (1) absence of independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a public place, (2) the informant and investigator being the same person, which compromises investigative fairness, and (3) insufficient corroborating evidence. The accused was discharged and granted bail of Rs. 5,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Feb-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 103/2026
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused, Shrilaben w/o Nagjibhai Dangar, of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for illegal possession of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing critical procedural flaws including: (1) absence of independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a public place, (2) the informant and investigator being the same person, which compromises investigative fairness, and (3) insufficient corroborating evidence. The accused was discharged and granted bail of Rs. 5,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts