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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016132025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1148/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1148/2025
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
792
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
kailashba w/o jitubha amarsang rathod Advocate - M R RATHOD
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
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts