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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA,116(2), 98(2)

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

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

13-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEODAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case