Government of Gujarat vs VISHVJIT URFE VISHUBHAI BHARATBHAI KHACHAR Advocate - V M DANA — 313/2024
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(E),116(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSN170005492024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
313/2024
Filing Date
23-07-2024
Registration No
313/2024
Registration Date
23-07-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT-THANGADH
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
VISHVJIT URFE VISHUBHAI BHARATBHAI KHACHAR Advocate - V M DANA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 20-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 16-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 02-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Thangadh acquitted the accused Vishwajit (Vishu Bhai) under the Prohibition Act sections 60(A)(I) and 116(B), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the testimony of the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the alleged recovery of foreign liquor bottles, no independent evidence confirmed the bottles' authenticity, and critical procedural requirements were not met, warranting the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Thangadh acquitted the accused Vishwajit (Vishu Bhai) under the Prohibition Act sections 60(A)(I) and 116(B), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the testimony of the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the alleged recovery of foreign liquor bottles, no independent evidence confirmed the bottles' authenticity, and critical procedural requirements were not met, warranting the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts