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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a)(a),98(2),99

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

16-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case