Govt. of Gujarat vs vikramshih danubha rathod Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1153/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016182025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1153/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1153/2025
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
806
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
vikramshih danubha rathod Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
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 First Class Judicial Magistrate Court in Sutrapad acquitted accused Vikramsinh Danubha Rathod of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical deficiencies in the investigation, including reliance on police witnesses instead of independent witnesses (panchas), lack of proper evidence regarding seizure details, and failure to establish a direct link between the prohibited alcohol and the accused. The court emphasized that in the absence of technical expert evidence and credible independent witness testimony, conviction could not be sustained, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt under criminal jurisprudence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate Court in Sutrapad acquitted accused Vikramsinh Danubha Rathod of charges under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical deficiencies in the investigation, including reliance on police witnesses instead of independent witnesses (panchas), lack of proper evidence regarding seizure details, and failure to establish a direct link between the prohibited alcohol and the accused. The court emphasized that in the absence of technical expert evidence and credible independent witness testimony, conviction could not be sustained, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt under criminal jurisprudence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts