GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs SANGITABEN DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI TARBADA — 2319/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJVD040034382025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2319/2025
Filing Date
10-09-2025
Registration No
2319/2025
Registration Date
10-09-2025
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)
SANGITABEN DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI TARBADA
Hearing History
Judge: 4-3rd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 08-12-2025 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 18-11-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 09-10-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Padra acquitted the accused (Sangitaben Dineshbhai Taribeda) under the Prohibition Act Sections 65(f) and 65(a)(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that crucial evidence, including the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report on the seized contraband and proper documentation of the seizure and custody chain, was missing. The absence of corroborating witness testimony and documentary support rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to establish guilt conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Padra acquitted the accused (Sangitaben Dineshbhai Taribeda) under the Prohibition Act Sections 65(f) and 65(a)(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that crucial evidence, including the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report on the seized contraband and proper documentation of the seizure and custody chain, was missing. The absence of corroborating witness testimony and documentary support rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to establish guilt conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts