Government of Gujarat vs MUKANDARBHAI NURMAHAMADBHAI RATHOD Advocate - M M SOLANKI — 1278/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116(2), 98(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK060015562025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1278/2025
Filing Date
10-11-2025
Registration No
1278/2025
Registration Date
10-11-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEODAR
Judge
4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996003250950
Police Station
DEODAR POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
MUKANDARBHAI NURMAHAMADBHAI RATHOD Advocate - M M SOLANKI
Hearing History
Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 28-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 24-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 12-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Diyoddar acquitted the accused (Mukunderbhai Nurmahembhai Rathod) in a Prohibition Act case, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps including the lack of proper panchnama (official record) corroboration, failure to examine the producer of the seized foreign liquor, and absence of scientific examination reports—determining that mere circumstantial evidence and interested witness testimony were insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Diyoddar acquitted the accused (Mukunderbhai Nurmahembhai Rathod) in a Prohibition Act case, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps including the lack of proper panchnama (official record) corroboration, failure to examine the producer of the seized foreign liquor, and absence of scientific examination reports—determining that mere circumstantial evidence and interested witness testimony were insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts