Govt. of Gujarat vs VIJAYBHAI RAJABHAI BAMANIYA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1099/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a),98(2),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050015492025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1099/2025
Filing Date
18-11-2025
Registration No
1099/2025
Registration Date
18-11-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
873
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
VIJAYBHAI RAJABHAI BAMANIYA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
bharatbhai nathubhai chavda
Adv. V D KAMLIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 12-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 18-11-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Sutrapad Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted both accused Vijayabhai Rajabhai Bambhaniya and Bharatbhai Nathubhai Chavda of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 61(a), 98(2), 99, 81) for illegal possession of foreign alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, citing inadequate corroborating evidence from witnesses (panchas), lack of proper investigation procedures, and insufficient technical evidence to conclusively prove the seizure of prohibited articles from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Sutrapad Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted both accused Vijayabhai Rajabhai Bambhaniya and Bharatbhai Nathubhai Chavda of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 61(a), 98(2), 99, 81) for illegal possession of foreign alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, citing inadequate corroborating evidence from witnesses (panchas), lack of proper investigation procedures, and insufficient technical evidence to conclusively prove the seizure of prohibited articles from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts