Govt. of Gujarat vs arashibhai najabhai kamaliya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1146/2025

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: GJGS050016112025

Filing Number

1146/2025

Filing Date

08-Dec-2025

Registration No

1146/2025

Registration Date

08-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

954

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

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.arashibhai najabhai kamaliya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The Sutrapaida Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted Arshhibhai Najabhai Kamliya of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, finding insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide credible witness testimony, proper seizure documentation, and technical evidence connecting the recovered liquor directly to the accused, and therefore granted the benefit of doubt in accordance with criminal jurisprudence principles. 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. 08-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1146/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sutrapaida Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted Arshhibhai Najabhai Kamliya of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, finding insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide credible witness testimony, proper seizure documentation, and technical evidence connecting the recovered liquor directly to the accused, and therefore granted the benefit of doubt in accordance with criminal jurisprudence principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case