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
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
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
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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts