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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a)(a),98(2),81

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

16-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

18-11-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case