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
Filing Number
1102/2025
Filing Date
18-Nov-2025
Registration No
1102/2025
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
846
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
-
1.shileshbhai dineshabhai jethava Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
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. 1102/2025
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.
Explore other courts