THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAMESHBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI RATHOD Advocate - H R JOSHI, B P PARMAR — 36/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th May 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN090000432026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

15-01-2026

Filing Number

36/2026

Filing Date

17-01-2026

Registration No

36/2026

Registration Date

17-01-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, UMRALA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

11th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198059250501

Police Station

UMRALA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

RAMESHBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI RATHOD Advocate - H R JOSHI, B P PARMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

11-05-2026

Disposed

06-05-2026

JUDGEMENT

17-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

16-04-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

09-04-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

11-05-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: C.C.No. 36/2026 The court acquitted accused Rameshbhai Meghajibhai Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for alleged possession and sale of liquor. The court found that while the investigating officers claimed to have seized liquor materials from the accused's possession with witnesses (panchas) present, the panchas' testimony did not corroborate the seizure details. The court held that without the witnesses confirming the factual circumstances of the seizure, the prosecution failed to establish exclusive and conscious possession of the prohibited items, and therefore could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C.No. 36/2026 The court acquitted accused Rameshbhai Meghajibhai Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for alleged possession and sale of liquor. The court found that while the investigating officers claimed to have seized liquor materials from the accused's possession with witnesses (panchas) present, the panchas' testimony did not corroborate the seizure details. The court held that without the witnesses confirming the factual circumstances of the seizure, the prosecution failed to establish exclusive and conscious possession of the prohibited items, and therefore could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, UMRALA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case