Government of Gujarat vs VISHVARAJSINH SAHDEVSINH ZALA Advocate - K V SHUKLA — 34/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSN020000472026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

34/2026

Filing Date

03-01-2026

Registration No

34/2026

Registration Date

03-01-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT SURENDRANAGAR

Judge

9-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

VISHVARAJSINH SAHDEVSINH ZALA Advocate - K V SHUKLA

Hearing History

Judge: 9-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

06-03-2026

Disposed

26-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

19-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

13-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

03-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary Case No. 34/2026 | Surendranagar First Class Judicial Magistrate Court The court acquitted defendant Vishvarajsinh Sahdevsinh Jhala of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for allegedly possessing 2 liters of indigenous liquor without a valid permit. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the panchnama (seizure document) lacked credible corroboration—the panchs who allegedly witnessed the seizure provided no substantive details during testimony to support the allegations. The court noted the absence of independent witnesses, FSL reports on the seized substance, and inadequate evidence linking the accused to the prohibited item, thus granting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No. 34/2026 | Surendranagar First Class Judicial Magistrate Court The court acquitted defendant Vishvarajsinh Sahdevsinh Jhala of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) for allegedly possessing 2 liters of indigenous liquor without a valid permit. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the panchnama (seizure document) lacked credible corroboration—the panchs who allegedly witnessed the seizure provided no substantive details during testimony to support the allegations. The court noted the absence of independent witnesses, FSL reports on the seized substance, and inadequate evidence linking the accused to the prohibited item, thus granting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT SURENDRANAGAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case