GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs ANITABEN W.O. HARISHBHAI URFE HARESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI MALI Advocate - H R PARMAR — 593/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJVD040007582025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

593/2025

Filing Date

17-03-2025

Registration No

593/2025

Registration Date

17-03-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, PADRA

Judge

4-3rd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

05th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

ANITABEN W.O. HARISHBHAI URFE HARESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI MALI Advocate - H R PARMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 4-3rd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

05-03-2026

Disposed

17-01-2026

JUDGEMENT

20-12-2025

FURTHER STATEMENT

06-11-2025

FURTHER STATEMENT

13-08-2025

FURTHER STATEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

05-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary Court Decision: The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused (Anitaben Harishbhai Malo) of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged illegal possession of liquor (2 liters, worth Rs. 400) recovered from her residence. Key Reasoning: The prosecution's case relied primarily on an unsubstantiated seizure memo and oral testimony without corroborating documentary evidence (FSL report), forensic support, or credible witness statements. The court noted critical gaps in the investigation, including failure to establish ownership of the seized item and lack of proper substantiation of the complainant's allegations, thereby giving the benefit of doubt to the accused as per criminal law principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Court Decision: The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused (Anitaben Harishbhai Malo) of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged illegal possession of liquor (2 liters, worth Rs. 400) recovered from her residence. Key Reasoning: The prosecution's case relied primarily on an unsubstantiated seizure memo and oral testimony without corroborating documentary evidence (FSL report), forensic support, or credible witness statements. The court noted critical gaps in the investigation, including failure to establish ownership of the seized item and lack of proper substantiation of the complainant's allegations, thereby giving the benefit of doubt to the accused as per criminal law principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PADRA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case