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
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
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
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts