Government of Gujarat vs JISHANKHAN AMJADKHAN KURESHI Advocate - J D CHAVDA — 1115/2025

Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSN170014822025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1115/2025

Filing Date

16-12-2025

Registration No

1115/2025

Registration Date

16-12-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT-THANGADH

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Acts & Sections

BOMBAY PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

JISHANKHAN AMJADKHAN KURESHI Advocate - J D CHAVDA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

06-03-2026

Disposed

20-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

18-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

10-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

02-02-2026

PLEA

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Thangadh acquitted the accused Jishankhaan Amjadkhaan Qureshi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for alleged unlicensed possession of 5 liters of country liquor worth Rs. 1,000. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized material was alcohol or that it was in the accused's direct custody, as the independent witnesses (panchas) did not corroborate the seizure panchnama and no FSL report confirmed the substance was liquor. Consequently, the accused was granted the benefit of doubt and discharged under BNS Section 271. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Thangadh acquitted the accused Jishankhaan Amjadkhaan Qureshi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for alleged unlicensed possession of 5 liters of country liquor worth Rs. 1,000. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized material was alcohol or that it was in the accused's direct custody, as the independent witnesses (panchas) did not corroborate the seizure panchnama and no FSL report confirmed the substance was liquor. Consequently, the accused was granted the benefit of doubt and discharged under BNS Section 271. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT-THANGADH All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case