GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs JASHIBEN URFE JASHODABEN W.O. LAKSHMANBHAI DABHAIBHAI VAGHRI Advocate - G K PARMAR — 2172/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJVD040032262025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2172/2025
Filing Date
25-08-2025
Registration No
2172/2025
Registration Date
25-08-2025
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)
JASHIBEN URFE JASHODABEN W.O. LAKSHMANBHAI DABHAIBHAI VAGHRI Advocate - G K 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 | |
| 25-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 17-01-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 20-12-2025 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 17-11-2025 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused of charges under the Prohibition Act (Section 65(A)(A)) due to insufficient and unreliable evidence. The court found that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible, the seizure of alleged illicit liquor lacked proper documentation (no FSL report), and the seizure panchnama was inadequately supported by credible evidence, warranting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused of charges under the Prohibition Act (Section 65(A)(A)) due to insufficient and unreliable evidence. The court found that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible, the seizure of alleged illicit liquor lacked proper documentation (no FSL report), and the seizure panchnama was inadequately supported by credible evidence, warranting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts