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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJVD040037802025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2592/2025
Filing Date
03-10-2025
Registration No
2592/2025
Registration Date
03-10-2025
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)
LALJIBHAI BHIKHABHAI MALI Advocate - G K PARMAR
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 | |
| 20-11-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 03-10-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts