GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs BABARBHAI GALABHAI MORI Advocate - N M MAKVANA — 76/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-E,65-F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW060001192026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

76/2026

Filing Date

16-02-2026

Registration No

76/2026

Registration Date

16-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, BHANVAD

Judge

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

Decision Date

02nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11185001251354

Police Station

BHANVAD POLICE STATION - DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65-E,65-F

Petitioner(s)

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

BABARBHAI GALABHAI MORI Advocate - N M MAKVANA

Hearing History

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

02-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

24-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

12-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

02-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted the accused, Babarsinh Galavsinh Mori, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegally manufacturing country liquor, finding that the prosecution's witnesses failed to adequately support the case and the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key prosecution witnesses, including panchas (sworn witnesses), did not provide credible testimony, and the investigating officer failed to follow proper legal procedures, making it impossible to establish the accused's culpability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused, Babarsinh Galavsinh Mori, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegally manufacturing country liquor, finding that the prosecution's witnesses failed to adequately support the case and the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key prosecution witnesses, including panchas (sworn witnesses), did not provide credible testimony, and the investigating officer failed to follow proper legal procedures, making it impossible to establish the accused's culpability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, BHANVAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case