Govt. of Gujarat vs punabhai bhimabhai chudasama Advocate - H M VAJA — 1139/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016042025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1139/2025
Filing Date
06-12-2025
Registration No
1139/2025
Registration Date
06-12-2025
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
856
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
punabhai bhimabhai chudasama Advocate - H M VAJA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 12-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sutrapur Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Punabhai Bhimabhai Chudasama of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that witness panchas failed to corroborate the prosecution's case, there was no technical expert evidence (FSL) confirming the seized contraband liquor's quality and quantity, and the seizure procedure was procedurally defective, warranting the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sutrapur Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Punabhai Bhimabhai Chudasama of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that witness panchas failed to corroborate the prosecution's case, there was no technical expert evidence (FSL) confirming the seized contraband liquor's quality and quantity, and the seizure procedure was procedurally defective, 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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts