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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016052025

Filing Number

1140/2025

Filing Date

06-Dec-2025

Registration No

1140/2025

Registration Date

06-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

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)

  1. 1.Govt. of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.vijay saraman chudasama Advocate - H M VAJA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-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.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 12-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1140/2025

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case