THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs HIMATSINH KODARSINH RATHOD Advocate - N K BHARVAD — 26/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR060000322026
Filing Number
26/2026
Filing Date
05-01-2026
Registration No
26/2026
Registration Date
05-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHANSURA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
50848
Police Station
DHANSURA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
HIMATSINH KODARSINH RATHOD Advocate - N K BHARVAD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 03-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: State of Gujarat v. Himatsinh Kodarsinh Rathod (CC 26/2026) The court acquitted the accused of illegal liquor possession charges, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case without credible corroboration. Although liquor was allegedly recovered from the accused's residence, the court noted that the independent witnesses (panchas) who were required to be present during the search did not support the prosecution's version, and the evidence lacked proper documentary and forensic corroboration as mandated by Gujarat Prohibition Rules, 2012. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: State of Gujarat v. Himatsinh Kodarsinh Rathod (CC 26/2026) The court acquitted the accused of illegal liquor possession charges, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case without credible corroboration. Although liquor was allegedly recovered from the accused's residence, the court noted that the independent witnesses (panchas) who were required to be present during the search did not support the prosecution's version, and the evidence lacked proper documentary and forensic corroboration as mandated by Gujarat Prohibition Rules, 2012. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts