Govt. of Gujarat vs axaybhai balubhai bambhaniya Advocate - M R RATHOD — 1151/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a),98(2),99. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016162025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1151/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1151/2025
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
826
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
axaybhai balubhai bambhaniya Advocate - M R RATHOD
polabhai bhanabhai vaja
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 Sutrapar Judicial Magistrate Court (Gir Somnath, Gujarat) acquitted both accused—Akshayabhāī Bālubhāī Bāmbhaniyā and Polābhāī Bhānābhāī Rājā—of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (sections 65(A), 98(2), 99, 81) for alleged illegal liquor trafficking. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical deficiencies: panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the case, proper seizure procedures were questionable, and the evidence lacked the required nexus between the accused and recovered contraband. Applying principles from Gujarat High Court precedents, the court held that absent credible witness testimony and proper investigation, conviction cannot stand. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Sutrapar Judicial Magistrate Court (Gir Somnath, Gujarat) acquitted both accused—Akshayabhāī Bālubhāī Bāmbhaniyā and Polābhāī Bhānābhāī Rājā—of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (sections 65(A), 98(2), 99, 81) for alleged illegal liquor trafficking. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical deficiencies: panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the case, proper seizure procedures were questionable, and the evidence lacked the required nexus between the accused and recovered contraband. Applying principles from Gujarat High Court precedents, the court held that absent credible witness testimony and proper investigation, conviction cannot stand. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts