GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs SITABEN DINESHBHAI SHANABHAI TARBADA Advocate - M D PATEL — 2320/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJVD040034392025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2320/2025
Filing Date
10-09-2025
Registration No
2320/2025
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)
SITABEN DINESHBHAI SHANABHAI TARBADA Advocate - M D PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 4-3rd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 08-12-2025 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 09-10-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 10-09-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Padra acquitted the accused (Sitaben) of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the recovery of illicit liquor convincingly, as the investigating officer's testimony lacked corroboration and critical documentary evidence like FSL reports was missing, necessitating that the benefit of doubt be given to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Padra acquitted the accused (Sitaben) of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the recovery of illicit liquor convincingly, as the investigating officer's testimony lacked corroboration and critical documentary evidence like FSL reports was missing, necessitating that the benefit of doubt be given to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts