Govt. of Gujarat vs NATHUBHAI ARSHIBHAI VAJA Advocate - B K BARAD — 1105/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050015572025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1105/2025

Filing Date

18-11-2025

Registration No

1105/2025

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

778

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)

NATHUBHAI ARSHIBHAI VAJA Advocate - B K BARAD

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

Summary The Sutrapar Primary Judicial Court acquitted defendant Nathubhai Arsibhai Raja of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence despite the seizure of 35 plastic bags of illegal country liquor valued at ₹1,000. The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical gaps including lack of technical expert evidence (FSL report), absence of independent witness corroboration, and procedural irregularities in the seizure process that rendered the investigation suspect. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sutrapar Primary Judicial Court acquitted defendant Nathubhai Arsibhai Raja of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding insufficient evidence despite the seizure of 35 plastic bags of illegal country liquor valued at ₹1,000. The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical gaps including lack of technical expert evidence (FSL report), absence of independent witness corroboration, and procedural irregularities in the seizure process that rendered the investigation suspect. 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