Government of Gujarat vs SUNILBHAI URFE SUNIYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI MUHANIYA Advocate - P K DEVAL — 106/2026
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E,116B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 14th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDH060001752026
Filing Number
106/2026
Filing Date
11-Feb-2026
Registration No
106/2026
Registration Date
11-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHANPUR
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
14-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 22-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11821014250604
Police Station
DHANPUR POLICE STATION - DAHOD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SUNILBHAI URFE SUNIYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI MUHANIYA Advocate - P K DEVAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-May-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: CC No. 106/2026 Decision: The court acquitted the defendant under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(I) and 116(B), finding the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession of foreign liquor beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court determined that: (1) actual physical possession of the seized liquor by the accused was not established on record; (2) the two independent panch witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's case; (3) proper sealing procedures were not followed; and (4) the investigating officer's entire procedure appeared tainted, preventing any conviction based on that investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-May-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-May-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Apr-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 106/2026
Case Summary: CC No. 106/2026 Decision: The court acquitted the defendant under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(I) and 116(B), finding the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession of foreign liquor beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court determined that: (1) actual physical possession of the seized liquor by the accused was not established on record; (2) the two independent panch witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's case; (3) proper sealing procedures were not followed; and (4) the investigating officer's entire procedure appeared tainted, preventing any conviction based on that investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts