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
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
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts