Government of Gujarat vs MOINMIYA MUNAFMIYA MALEK — 229/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAN030003152026
Filing Number
229/2026
Filing Date
11-Feb-2026
Registration No
229/2026
Registration Date
11-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PETLAD
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11215021250545
Police Station
PETLAD TOWN POLICE STATION - ANAND DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MOINMIYA MUNAFMIYA MALEK
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: C.C.NO.229-2026 Government of Gujarat v. Moinmiya Munafmiya Malek The court acquitted the respondent of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(a), 116(B) for alleged possession of foreign liquor with intent to sell. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the key government witnesses did not adequately support the charges and the evidence of exclusive conscious possession was insufficient. The court noted procedural deficiencies in the investigation and ruled that valuable court time should not be wasted pursuing trials lacking conviction prospects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
17-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
24-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 229/2026
Case Summary: C.C.NO.229-2026 Government of Gujarat v. Moinmiya Munafmiya Malek The court acquitted the respondent of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(a), 116(B) for alleged possession of foreign liquor with intent to sell. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the key government witnesses did not adequately support the charges and the evidence of exclusive conscious possession was insufficient. The court noted procedural deficiencies in the investigation and ruled that valuable court time should not be wasted pursuing trials lacking conviction prospects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts