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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65E

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.

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

24-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court, Veraval All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case