STATE OF GUJARAT vs KARSHANBHA AMARSANGBHA SUMANIYA Advocate - R N THAKAR-G/4462/2019 — 1361/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135(1). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW040015512025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1361/2025

Filing Date

22-08-2025

Registration No

1361/2025

Registration Date

22-08-2025

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

11185005250205

Police Station

MITHAPUR POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) POLICE ACT, 1951 Section 135(1)

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

KARSHANBHA AMARSANGBHA SUMANIYA Advocate - R N THAKAR-G/4462/2019

Hearing History

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

10-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

02-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

27-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

18-12-2025

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted the accused, Karsanbhai Amarsangbhai Sumraniya, of charges under IPC Section 135(1) (destruction of government property) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the five witnesses examined by the prosecution (particularly the magistrate's inspection report witnesses) provided no substantive corroboration of the alleged offense, and the confessional statement allegedly made by the accused was not supported by documentary evidence. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case and ordered the accused's acquittal along with recovery of seized cash and filing of a security bond. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused, Karsanbhai Amarsangbhai Sumraniya, of charges under IPC Section 135(1) (destruction of government property) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the five witnesses examined by the prosecution (particularly the magistrate's inspection report witnesses) provided no substantive corroboration of the alleged offense, and the confessional statement allegedly made by the accused was not supported by documentary evidence. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case and ordered the accused's acquittal along with recovery of seized cash and filing of a security bond. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, OKHAMANDAL All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case