THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KALUSINH HIRSINH RATHOD Advocate - P K DESAI — 1179/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A),(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 15th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR060014922025
Filing Number
1179/2025
Filing Date
31-12-2025
Registration No
1179/2025
Registration Date
31-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHANSURA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
15th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
50768
Police Station
DHANSURA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KALUSINH HIRSINH RATHOD Advocate - P K DESAI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 23-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 18-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 04-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kalusinh Hirsinh Rathod (CC 1179/2025) The court discharged the accused of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(b), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to lack of credible witness corroboration. The independent panchas (witnesses) who were present during the liquor seizure did not support the prosecution's allegations, and the evidence relied solely on uncorroborated police testimony, which is insufficient to sustain a conviction in seizure cases where panchas' presence is mandatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kalusinh Hirsinh Rathod (CC 1179/2025) The court discharged the accused of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(b), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to lack of credible witness corroboration. The independent panchas (witnesses) who were present during the liquor seizure did not support the prosecution's allegations, and the evidence relied solely on uncorroborated police testimony, which is insufficient to sustain a conviction in seizure cases where panchas' presence is mandatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts