Govt. of Gujarat vs shileshbhai dineshabhai jethava Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1102/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050015522025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1102/2025

Filing Date

18-11-2025

Registration No

1102/2025

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

846

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

shileshbhai dineshabhai jethava Advocate - 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 Sutraparala First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Shaileshbhai Dineshbhai Jethwa of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that critical prosecution witnesses (panchas) failed to corroborate the seizure of illicit liquor, the investigating officer lacked proper procedural compliance, and the link between the alleged contraband and the accused remained unestablished, warranting the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sutraparala First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Shaileshbhai Dineshbhai Jethwa of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that critical prosecution witnesses (panchas) failed to corroborate the seizure of illicit liquor, the investigating officer lacked proper procedural compliance, and the link between the alleged contraband and the accused remained unestablished, warranting the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. 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