Govt. of Gujarat vs vijay saraman chudasama Advocate - H M VAJA — 1140/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016052025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1140/2025
Filing Date
06-12-2025
Registration No
1140/2025
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
887
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
vijay saraman 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 Sutrapada First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Vijayabhai Sarmanabhai Chudasama of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that key witnesses (panchas) did not corroborate the prosecution's seizure of prohibited liquor from the accused's house, and critical procedural and evidentiary gaps—including lack of technical evidence, unclear chain of custody, and absence of proper investigation—rendered the case unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sutrapada First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Vijayabhai Sarmanabhai Chudasama of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that key witnesses (panchas) did not corroborate the prosecution's seizure of prohibited liquor from the accused's house, and critical procedural and evidentiary gaps—including lack of technical evidence, unclear chain of custody, and absence of proper investigation—rendered the case unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts