Government of Gujarat vs AKSHAYBHAI JAGDISHBHAI CHAUDHARI Advocate - A N PATEL — 93/2026

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP070001032026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

29-01-2026

Filing Number

93/2026

Filing Date

29-01-2026

Registration No

93/2026

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

1112

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)

AKSHAYBHAI JAGDISHBHAI CHAUDHARI 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

Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Akshaybhai Jagdishbhai Chaudhary, of charges under the Prohibition Act (Section 65-A) for allegedly possessing 5 liters of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the witnesses were police officers lacking credibility, the panchnama (seizure record) had procedural defects, and no independent witnesses supported the seizure claim. The court held that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution, which it did not satisfactorily discharge, resulting in the accused's acquittal under the Indian Penal Code and discharge of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Akshaybhai Jagdishbhai Chaudhary, of charges under the Prohibition Act (Section 65-A) for allegedly possessing 5 liters of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the witnesses were police officers lacking credibility, the panchnama (seizure record) had procedural defects, and no independent witnesses supported the seizure claim. The court held that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution, which it did not satisfactorily discharge, resulting in the accused's acquittal under the Indian Penal Code and discharge of charges. 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