The State of Gujarat vs GOVINDBHAI NARANBHAI BARAD Advocate - H C CHAUHAN — 133/2023
Case under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Section 4(1)a,21,21(1)(2),22. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: GJGS010013092023
Filing Number
133/2023
Filing Date
27-Sep-2023
Registration No
133/2023
Registration Date
27-Sep-2023
Court
District Court, Veraval
Judge
2-Addl. District Judge
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
3050
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The State of Gujarat
Adv. K D VALA
Respondent(s)
-
1.GOVINDBHAI NARANBHAI BARAD Advocate - H C CHAUHAN
-
2.RAMESHBHAI SARMANBHAI MEVADA
-
3.LAKHMANBHAI VASABHAI KHUTAD
-
4.BIJALBHAI PACHABHAI KAMALIYA
-
5.VIJAYBHAI KALABHAI SOLANKI
-
6.PUNJABHAI KANABHAI CHHATRODIYA
-
7.VIRABHAI @ BILABHAI JIVABHAI SOLANKI
-
8.GOPALBHAI BHIKHABHAI SOLANKI
-
9.RAMABHAI MALABHAI SOLANKI
-
10.JESUKHBHAI VARJANGBHAI SOLANKI
-
11.AJITBHAI @ AJAYBHAI DEVSIBHAI BARAD
-
12.NARANBHAI KARSANBHAI SOLANKI
-
13.NAVINBHAI JAGMALBHAI @ JAGABHAI ZALA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary: Sessions Case 133/2023 The court acquitted 13 of 14 accused persons charged with illegal limestone mining under Gujarat mineral regulations and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in unauthorized mining and mineral theft. Critically, the court held that the FIR was invalid because the complainant lacked authority to lodge the complaint, as mining offense cases require a written complaint from an authorized government officer under the Act's Section 22. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addl. District Judge
-
10-Apr-2026
Judgement
Addl. District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Judgement
Addl. District Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
Judgement
Addl. District Judge
-
06-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
23-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
19-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
05-Dec-2025
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
07-Nov-2025
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
03-Oct-2025
Further Statement
2nd Addl District Judge
-
12-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
29-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
14-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
23-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
11-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
23-Jan-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
19-Nov-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
17-Oct-2024
Process To Accused
3rd Addl District Judge
-
19-Sep-2024
Process To Accused
3rd Addl District Judge
-
06-Aug-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
3rd Addl District Judge
-
24-Jul-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
3rd Addl District Judge
-
26-Jun-2024
Process To Accused
3rd Addl District Judge
-
15-May-2024
Process To Accused
2nd Addl District Judge
-
30-Mar-2024
Process To Accused
2nd Addl District Judge
-
30-Jan-2024
Process To Accused
2nd Addl District Judge
-
08-Dec-2023
Process To Accused
2nd Addl District Judge
-
27-Oct-2023
Process To Accused
2nd Addl District Judge
-
27-Sep-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Sep-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 133/2023
Summary: Sessions Case 133/2023 The court acquitted 13 of 14 accused persons charged with illegal limestone mining under Gujarat mineral regulations and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in unauthorized mining and mineral theft. Critically, the court held that the FIR was invalid because the complainant lacked authority to lodge the complaint, as mining offense cases require a written complaint from an authorized government officer under the Act's Section 22. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts