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
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
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
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts