Government of Gujarat vs VIPULBHAI CHHANABHAI SARALA JATE.CHU.KOLI Advocate - P P GOLANEE — 3877/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a),116(B),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSN020055122025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

3877/2025

Filing Date

15-10-2025

Registration No

3877/2025

Registration Date

15-10-2025

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),116(B),81

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

VIPULBHAI CHHANABHAI SARALA JATE.CHU.KOLI Advocate - P P GOLANEE

AABIDBHAI HABIBBHAI KHALIFA (MU.MAN VANAND)

Hearing History

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

06-03-2026

Disposed

26-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

19-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

12-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

05-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary The court acquitted both accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act sections 65(A)(A), 116(B), and 81. The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 12 bottles of English liquor seized from the accused's residence were unlawfully possessed. Critical gaps in evidence included: witnesses (panchas) who failed to corroborate the panchnama details, absence of independent witnesses, lack of chemical analysis reports confirming the bottles' authenticity and sealed condition, and reliance solely on police testimony without corroborating evidence. The court applied established principles that conviction cannot rest on conjecture or police testimony alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court acquitted both accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act sections 65(A)(A), 116(B), and 81. The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 12 bottles of English liquor seized from the accused's residence were unlawfully possessed. Critical gaps in evidence included: witnesses (panchas) who failed to corroborate the panchnama details, absence of independent witnesses, lack of chemical analysis reports confirming the bottles' authenticity and sealed condition, and reliance solely on police testimony without corroborating evidence. The court applied established principles that conviction cannot rest on conjecture or police testimony alone. 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