State of Gujarat vs MANAVBHAI ARJUNBHAI JUNGI Advocate - P D CHOMAL — 1051/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS020018232025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1051/2025
Filing Date
15-05-2025
Registration No
1051/2025
Registration Date
15-05-2025
Court
Civil Court, Veraval
Judge
10-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11186004250297
Police Station
PRABHAS PATAN POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
MANAVBHAI ARJUNBHAI JUNGI Advocate - P D CHOMAL
Hearing History
Judge: 10-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 09-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 02-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 02-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted the defendant Manvbhai Arjunbhai of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged illegal possession of foreign liquor, finding insufficient corroborating evidence beyond the complainant's testimony. The judge noted critical gaps including lack of independent witness testimony, absence of property ownership documentation, and panchayat witnesses failing to substantiate the seizure details, thus granting the defendant benefit of doubt under the reasonable doubt principle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted the defendant Manvbhai Arjunbhai of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged illegal possession of foreign liquor, finding insufficient corroborating evidence beyond the complainant's testimony. The judge noted critical gaps including lack of independent witness testimony, absence of property ownership documentation, and panchayat witnesses failing to substantiate the seizure details, thus granting the defendant benefit of doubt under the reasonable doubt principle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts