THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SHREENATH TRADING CO. Advocate - C B BAROT — 421/2025
Case under The Seeds Act, 1966 Section 6(K),7(KH),19,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK130004882025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
421/2025
Filing Date
28-03-2025
Registration No
421/2025
Registration Date
28-03-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-DANTIWADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SHREENATH TRADING CO. Advocate - C B BAROT
DINESHBHAI DEVABHAI CHAUDHARI
Adv. C B BAROT
KAVERI SEED COMPANY LTD
Adv. C B BAROT
KETAN VISHNUBHAI PATEL
Adv. C B BAROT
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 24-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 07-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 02-01-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted the defendants of charges under the Seeds Rules 1968 and Seeds Act 1966, finding that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case due to insufficient evidence and lack of proper technical substantiation for the genetic purity test results showing 35% instead of 95%. The court held that the prosecution's case relied solely on oral statements without adequate documentary or technical corroboration, and that the sample handling procedures and witness credibility were inadequately established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted the defendants of charges under the Seeds Rules 1968 and Seeds Act 1966, finding that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case due to insufficient evidence and lack of proper technical substantiation for the genetic purity test results showing 35% instead of 95%. The court held that the prosecution's case relied solely on oral statements without adequate documentary or technical corroboration, and that the sample handling procedures and witness credibility were inadequately established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts