Govt. of Gujarat vs imtiyajbhai yusufbhai malek Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1116/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa,98(2),99. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050015702025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1116/2025

Filing Date

19-11-2025

Registration No

1116/2025

Registration Date

19-11-2025

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

716

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65aa,98(2),99
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 336(2)

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

imtiyajbhai yusufbhai malek 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

19-11-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Imtiyazbhai (alias Ramo) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and BNS Code, finding insufficient evidence despite recovered contraband alcohol and a motorcycle with forged number plates. The court noted critical gaps in witness testimony, lack of technical expert evidence, and failure to establish a direct link between the prohibited articles and the accused, citing precedent that conviction cannot rest on procedural formality alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Imtiyazbhai (alias Ramo) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and BNS Code, finding insufficient evidence despite recovered contraband alcohol and a motorcycle with forged number plates. The court noted critical gaps in witness testimony, lack of technical expert evidence, and failure to establish a direct link between the prohibited articles and the accused, citing precedent that conviction cannot rest on procedural formality alone. 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