Govt. of Gujarat vs manjuben lakhmanbhai parmar Advocate - K J VADHER — 1155/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016202025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1155/2025

Filing Date

08-12-2025

Registration No

1155/2025

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

915

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

manjuben lakhmanbhai parmar Advocate - K J VADHER

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 Sutrapur Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted Manjuben (accused) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in evidence: witness panchas did not substantiate the seizure, the investigation procedure was questionable, technical expert evidence was absent, and the prosecution could not definitively establish the seized alcohol's provenance or direct connection to the accused. Applying the benefit of doubt principle and citing relevant High Court precedents, the court concluded the case lacked sufficient corroborating evidence for conviction and ordered the accused's acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The Sutrapur Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted Manjuben (accused) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in evidence: witness panchas did not substantiate the seizure, the investigation procedure was questionable, technical expert evidence was absent, and the prosecution could not definitively establish the seized alcohol's provenance or direct connection to the accused. Applying the benefit of doubt principle and citing relevant High Court precedents, the court concluded the case lacked sufficient corroborating evidence for conviction and ordered the accused's acquittal. 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