GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs LALJIBHAI BHIKHABHAI MALI Advocate - G K PARMAR — 2592/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65BCF,65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJVD040037802025

Filing Number

2592/2025

Filing Date

03-Oct-2025

Registration No

2592/2025

Registration Date

03-Oct-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 65BCF,65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LALJIBHAI BHIKHABHAI MALI Advocate - G K PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra, acquitted the accused Laljibhai Bhakhabhäi Mali of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(B.C.A) and 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove possession of illicit liquor worth ₹1,600. The court held that the FIR's evidentiary foundation was weak, as the seized articles lacked proper FSL certification and the investigating officer's testimony contradicted the FIR narrative regarding seizure location and procedural compliance. 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. 20-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  7. 03-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 03-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2592/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra, acquitted the accused Laljibhai Bhakhabhäi Mali of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(B.C.A) and 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove possession of illicit liquor worth ₹1,600. The court held that the FIR's evidentiary foundation was weak, as the seized articles lacked proper FSL certification and the investigating officer's testimony contradicted the FIR narrative regarding seizure location and procedural compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case