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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJVD040034392025

Filing Number

2320/2025

Filing Date

10-Sep-2025

Registration No

2320/2025

Registration Date

10-Sep-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

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SITABEN DINESHBHAI SHANABHAI TARBADA Advocate - M D PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    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.

  3. 05-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 23-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 08-Dec-2025

    Further Statement

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  7. 10-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 10-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2320/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case