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
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
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.
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts