STATE OF GUJARAT vs KARSHANBHA AMARSANGBHA SUMANIYA Advocate - R N THAKAR-G/4462/2019 — 1927/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(E). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW040021782025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1927/2025
Filing Date
21-11-2025
Registration No
1927/2025
Registration Date
21-11-2025
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
11185005250923
Police Station
MITHAPUR POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 02-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 27-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 03-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused Karsnbha Amarsangbha Sumraniya of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(I) for illegal possession of 75 liters of country liquor valued at Rs. 15,000. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the five police witnesses who conducted the search could not adequately corroborate the seizure details, and the credible evidence from independent witnesses was lacking to establish the charge conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused Karsnbha Amarsangbha Sumraniya of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(I) for illegal possession of 75 liters of country liquor valued at Rs. 15,000. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the five police witnesses who conducted the search could not adequately corroborate the seizure details, and the credible evidence from independent witnesses was lacking to establish the charge conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts