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
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
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PLEA
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts