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
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
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts