Government of Gujarat vs PRAVINBHAI KANUSINGBHAI CHAUDHARI Advocate - S R CHAUDHARI — 88/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A,A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP070000982026

e-Filing Number

05-01-2026

Filing Number

88/2026

Filing Date

29-Jan-2026

Registration No

88/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DOLVAN

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1089

Police Station

DOLVAN POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A,A)

Petitioner(s)

1.Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

1.PRAVINBHAI KANUSINGBHAI CHAUDHARI Advocate - S R CHAUDHARI

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
17-Apr-2026

JudegementView PDF

Case Summary Court Decision: The Magistrate Court acquitted the accused, Pravinbhai Kanusinh Chaudhari, of charges under the Prohibition Act (Section 65), finding the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that critical procedural deficiencies—including the absence of proper panchnama (official record), lack of independent witnesses, and reliance solely on police witnesses—undermined the credibility of the seized contraband evidence and prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
17-Apr-2026

Disposed

Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C
25-Mar-2026

Further Statement

Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C
09-Mar-2026

Evidence Of Prosecution

Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C
12-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
29-Jan-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 88/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Court Decision: The Magistrate Court acquitted the accused, Pravinbhai Kanusinh Chaudhari, of charges under the Prohibition Act (Section 65), finding the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that critical procedural deficiencies—including the absence of proper panchnama (official record), lack of independent witnesses, and reliance solely on police witnesses—undermined the credibility of the seized contraband evidence and prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.