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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJVD040040112025

Filing Number

2786/2025

Filing Date

17-Oct-2025

Registration No

2786/2025

Registration Date

17-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 65F

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAILASHBEN ISHVARBHAI DAHYABHAI MALI Advocate - M D PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    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.

  3. 05-Mar-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 06-Feb-2026

    Judgement

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

  5. 12-Jan-2026

    Further Statement

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

  6. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  7. 17-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 17-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2786/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case