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
Filing Number
1151/2025
Filing Date
08-Dec-2025
Registration No
1151/2025
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
826
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
-
1.axaybhai balubhai bambhaniya Advocate - M R RATHOD
-
2.polabhai bhanabhai vaja
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Judegement
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.
-
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. 1151/2025
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.
Explore other courts