GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs LALITABEN BHIKHABHAI MANGALBHAI MALI Advocate - H R PARMAR — 2465/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJVD040036192025
Filing Number
2465/2025
Filing Date
19-Sep-2025
Registration No
2465/2025
Registration Date
19-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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.LALITABEN BHIKHABHAI MANGALBHAI MALI Advocate - H R PARMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-Mar-2026
Judegement
Court Decision Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused under the Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized alcohol was found in the accused's possession, as the seizure panchnama lacked corroboration from independent witnesses and no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report was produced to confirm the seized material's authenticity. 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.
-
07-Feb-2026
Judgement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
04-Feb-2026
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
21-Jan-2026
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
06-Jan-2026
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
15-Dec-2025
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
06-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
30-Oct-2025
Process To Accused
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
19-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2465/2025
Court Decision Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused under the Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized alcohol was found in the accused's possession, as the seizure panchnama lacked corroboration from independent witnesses and no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report was produced to confirm the seized material's authenticity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts