Government of Gujarat vs AMICHANDBHAI MANCHHUBHAI KONKANI Advocate - A N PATEL — 91/2026

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP070001012026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

29-01-2026

Filing Number

91/2026

Filing Date

29-01-2026

Registration No

91/2026

Registration Date

02-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DOLVAN

Judge

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

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

1073

Police Station

DOLVAN POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(A,A)

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

AMICHANDBHAI MANCHHUBHAI KONKANI Advocate - A N PATEL

Hearing History

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

17-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

09-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

12-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted the accused, Amichands Manchubhai Kokani, of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for allegedly possessing 5 liters of illicit liquor on November 15, 2025. The judge found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting significant gaps in evidence including lack of independent witnesses, missing panchnama details, and inconsistencies in police testimony. The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and ruled that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused, Amichands Manchubhai Kokani, of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for allegedly possessing 5 liters of illicit liquor on November 15, 2025. The judge found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting significant gaps in evidence including lack of independent witnesses, missing panchnama details, and inconsistencies in police testimony. The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and ruled that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DOLVAN All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case