THE STATE OF GUJRAT vs BHUTABHA ASHABHA MANEK Advocate - M A DAYAGRA — 239/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(F). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW040002782025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
239/2025
Filing Date
10-02-2025
Registration No
239/2025
Registration Date
10-02-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, OKHAMANDAL
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11185005241153
Police Station
MITHAPUR POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJRAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BHUTABHA ASHABHA MANEK Advocate - M A DAYAGRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 31-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 29-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 14-11-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Bhutaba Ashaba Maneke, of charges under Section 65-F of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegal manufacture of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the five panchas (witnesses) who prepared the seizure panchnama only acknowledged their own signatures without corroborating the prosecution's evidence, and crucial independent witnesses were police officers rather than impartial citizens. The accused was ordered to forfeit the seized liquor and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Bhutaba Ashaba Maneke, of charges under Section 65-F of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegal manufacture of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the five panchas (witnesses) who prepared the seizure panchnama only acknowledged their own signatures without corroborating the prosecution's evidence, and crucial independent witnesses were police officers rather than impartial citizens. The accused was ordered to forfeit the seized liquor and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts