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
Filing Number
1099/2025
Filing Date
18-Nov-2025
Registration No
1099/2025
Registration Date
18-Nov-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
873
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
-
1.VIJAYBHAI RAJABHAI BAMANIYA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
-
2.bharatbhai nathubhai chavda
Adv. V D KAMLIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1099/2025
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.
Explore other courts