Government of Gujarat vs KARANBHAI CHOTAJI THAKOR Advocate - G M DAMOR — 2995/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAH100039692025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

12-03-2025

Filing Number

2995/2025

Filing Date

10-11-2025

Registration No

2995/2025

Registration Date

10-11-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, VIRAMGAM

Judge

2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

16th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11192060250068

Police Station

VIRAMGAM- RURAL POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

KARANBHAI CHOTAJI THAKOR Advocate - G M DAMOR

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

16-04-2026

Disposed

15-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

07-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

24-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

23-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

16-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted accused Karanbhai Chotaji Thakore of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65-A, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the seized liquor (13 liters valued at Rs. 2,600) was not recovered from the accused's direct possession, the panchnama witnesses could not substantiate the seizure details, and independent corroborating evidence was absent, leaving reasonable doubt favoring the accused as per established criminal jurisprudence principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted accused Karanbhai Chotaji Thakore of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65-A, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the seized liquor (13 liters valued at Rs. 2,600) was not recovered from the accused's direct possession, the panchnama witnesses could not substantiate the seizure details, and independent corroborating evidence was absent, leaving reasonable doubt favoring the accused as per established criminal jurisprudence principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, VIRAMGAM All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case