Government of Gujarat vs ANILKUMAR BALVIRSINH JAT Advocate - R D KUMPAVAT — 732/2024

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AE. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 21st April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAR020010962024

Case disposed

Filing Number

732/2024

Filing Date

29-03-2024

Registration No

732/2024

Registration Date

29-03-2024

Court

CIVIL COURT, MODASA

Judge

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

Decision Date

21st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

302

Police Station

TINTOI POLICE STATION - ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AE

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

ANILKUMAR BALVIRSINH JAT Advocate - R D KUMPAVAT

Hearing History

Judge: 7-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

21-04-2026

Disposed

16-04-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

10-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

17-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

07-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

21-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 732-2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Anikulmar Balvirsibh Jaat, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65. The prosecution failed to establish a convincing case due to procedural lapses in evidence collection and preservation of seized foreign liquor samples, particularly the absence of proper witness (panch) documentation as mandated by the 2012 Rules. Key Reasoning: The court found that police witnesses could not substantiate claims about the seized liquor's identity, quantity, or proper handling, and the prosecution's case relied on questionable evidence lacking independent corroboration and adherence to statutory procedures for sample collection and analysis. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 732-2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Anikulmar Balvirsibh Jaat, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65. The prosecution failed to establish a convincing case due to procedural lapses in evidence collection and preservation of seized foreign liquor samples, particularly the absence of proper witness (panch) documentation as mandated by the 2012 Rules. Key Reasoning: The court found that police witnesses could not substantiate claims about the seized liquor's identity, quantity, or proper handling, and the prosecution's case relied on questionable evidence lacking independent corroboration and adherence to statutory procedures for sample collection and analysis. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT, MODASA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case