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
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
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 12-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts