Govt. of Gujarat vs kailashba w/o jitubha amarsang rathod Advocate - M R RATHOD — 1148/2025

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: GJGS050016132025

Filing Number

1148/2025

Filing Date

08-Dec-2025

Registration No

1148/2025

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

792

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

1.Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

1.kailashba w/o jitubha amarsang rathod Advocate - M R RATHOD

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
16-Mar-2026

JudegementView PDF

Case Summary The Sutrapar Judicial Magistrate Court (Gujarat) acquitted Kailashba Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), for allegedly possessing 2 liters of alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient corroborating evidence from witnesses and lack of technical/FSL evidence regarding the seized material's authenticity and quantity. The court emphasized that the panchas (witnesses) did not sufficiently support the prosecution's narrative, and without proper procedural compliance and witness credibility, conviction could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
16-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
09-Mar-2026

Judgement

Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
12-Jan-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
08-Dec-2025

Case filed

Registration No. 1148/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Sutrapar Judicial Magistrate Court (Gujarat) acquitted Kailashba Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), for allegedly possessing 2 liters of alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient corroborating evidence from witnesses and lack of technical/FSL evidence regarding the seized material's authenticity and quantity. The court emphasized that the panchas (witnesses) did not sufficiently support the prosecution's narrative, and without proper procedural compliance and witness credibility, conviction could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.