GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs GAJENDRASINH URFE LALO MAHENDRASINH SINDHA Advocate - D M PRAJAPATI — 2603/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJVD040037912025

Filing Number

2603/2025

Filing Date

03-Oct-2025

Registration No

2603/2025

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 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GAJENDRASINH URFE LALO MAHENDRASINH SINDHA Advocate - D M PRAJAPATI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution's case relied heavily on unsubstantiated police statements without documentary or forensic corroboration, and the seizure of alleged contraband liquor lacked proper FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) verification and ownership proof, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt principle. 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. 2603/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution's case relied heavily on unsubstantiated police statements without documentary or forensic corroboration, and the seizure of alleged contraband liquor lacked proper FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) verification and ownership proof, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt principle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case