Government of Gujarat vs MANISHBHAI RAMESHBHAI NAI Advocate - V J PAREGI — 96/2020
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AE,98(2),99,116B,81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK080001172020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
96/2020
Filing Date
07-02-2020
Registration No
96/2020
Registration Date
07-02-2020
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
528
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
MANISHBHAI RAMESHBHAI NAI Advocate - V J PAREGI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 09-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 05-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 01-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Taraod, acquitted accused Manish Ramesh Nai on March 12, 2026, in a liquor smuggling case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused transported foreign-made alcohol worth ₹21.67 lakh without proper permits, as the key witness (the panchnama witness) did not support the complainant's case, and critical evidence like FSL reports and independent corroborating witnesses were absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Court Decision The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Taraod, acquitted accused Manish Ramesh Nai on March 12, 2026, in a liquor smuggling case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused transported foreign-made alcohol worth ₹21.67 lakh without proper permits, as the key witness (the panchnama witness) did not support the complainant's case, and critical evidence like FSL reports and independent corroborating witnesses were absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts