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
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
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
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 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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts