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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

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

16-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case