GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs KAILASHBEN ISHVARBHAI DAHYABHAI MALI Advocate - M D PATEL — 2786/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJVD040040112025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2786/2025
Filing Date
17-10-2025
Registration No
2786/2025
Registration Date
17-10-2025
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)
KAILASHBEN ISHVARBHAI DAHYABHAI MALI Advocate - M D PATEL
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 | |
| 06-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 12-01-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 04-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 17-10-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused Kailashben Ishwarbhai Malo of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(f), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in evidence, including lack of FSL report on the allegedly seized alcohol, missing details about the seizure, and insufficient corroboration of the investigating officer's testimony, warranting the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padra acquitted the accused Kailashben Ishwarbhai Malo of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(f), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in evidence, including lack of FSL report on the allegedly seized alcohol, missing details about the seizure, and insufficient corroboration of the investigating officer's testimony, warranting the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts