GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs SAVITABEN W.O. JAYANTIBHAI JESANGBHAI MALI Advocate - H R PARMAR — 2173/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJVD040032272025
Filing Number
2173/2025
Filing Date
25-Aug-2025
Registration No
2173/2025
Registration Date
25-Aug-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, PADRA
Judge
4-3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
05-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 10-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SAVITABEN W.O. JAYANTIBHAI JESANGBHAI MALI Advocate - H R PARMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Padra acquitted the accused of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence and credibility issues with prosecution witnesses. The court found that the seizing officer's testimony lacked corroboration, crucial documentary evidence (FSL report) was absent, and the chain of custody for seized liquor was not established beyond reasonable doubt, thereby benefiting the accused with doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-Mar-2026
Disposed
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
25-Feb-2026
Judgement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
06-Feb-2026
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
03-Jan-2026
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
22-Dec-2025
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
19-Dec-2025
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
10-Nov-2025
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
30-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
25-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2173/2025
The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Padra acquitted the accused of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence and credibility issues with prosecution witnesses. The court found that the seizing officer's testimony lacked corroboration, crucial documentary evidence (FSL report) was absent, and the chain of custody for seized liquor was not established beyond reasonable doubt, thereby benefiting the accused with doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts