Govt. of Gujarat vs pravinbhai danabhai vaja Advocate - M R RATHOD — 1101/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050015512025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1101/2025
Filing Date
18-11-2025
Registration No
1101/2025
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
829
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
pravinbhai danabhai vaja Advocate - M R RATHOD
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 First Class Judicial Magistrate Court at Sutrapada acquitted Pravinbhai Danabhai Raja of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the witness testimony (particularly the panchas) was unreliable, the investigation procedure was questionable, and critical evidentiary gaps existed—including lack of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) evidence, absence of proper seizure documentation, and failure to establish direct connection between the accused and the prohibited alcohol seized. The accused was acquitted and discharged, with the court citing precedent that courts should not waste time on trials lacking conviction prospects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate Court at Sutrapada acquitted Pravinbhai Danabhai Raja of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the witness testimony (particularly the panchas) was unreliable, the investigation procedure was questionable, and critical evidentiary gaps existed—including lack of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) evidence, absence of proper seizure documentation, and failure to establish direct connection between the accused and the prohibited alcohol seized. The accused was acquitted and discharged, with the court citing precedent that courts should not waste time on trials lacking conviction prospects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts