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
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2173/2025
Filing Date
25-08-2025
Registration No
2173/2025
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)
SAVITABEN W.O. JAYANTIBHAI JESANGBHAI 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 | |
| 25-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 06-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 03-01-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 22-12-2025 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts