Govt. of Gujarat vs parabatbhai meramanbhai vala Advocate - R D JAKHOTRA — 1145/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016102025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1145/2025

Filing Date

08-12-2025

Registration No

1145/2025

Registration Date

08-12-2025

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

963

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

Respondent(s)

parabatbhai meramanbhai vala Advocate - R D JAKHOTRA

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 Sutrapadā First Class Magistrate Court acquitted Parbatbhāī Merāmanbhāī Vālā of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for possessing 3 liters of illicit alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear and conclusive case, noting critical evidentiarygaps including lack of technical expert evidence (FSL report), absence of independent/impartial witnesses (only police officials testified), and failure to definitively prove the seizure location and the accused's ownership of the seized substance. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the court acquitted the accused and ordered destruction of seized materials after appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sutrapadā First Class Magistrate Court acquitted Parbatbhāī Merāmanbhāī Vālā of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for possessing 3 liters of illicit alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear and conclusive case, noting critical evidentiarygaps including lack of technical expert evidence (FSL report), absence of independent/impartial witnesses (only police officials testified), and failure to definitively prove the seizure location and the accused's ownership of the seized substance. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the court acquitted the accused and ordered destruction of seized materials after appeal period. 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