Govt. of Gujarat vs saramanbhai babubhai kamaliya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1164/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016292025
Filing Number
1164/2025
Filing Date
08-Dec-2025
Registration No
1164/2025
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
736
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
-
1.saramanbhai babubhai kamaliya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Judegement
Court Judgment Summary The Sutrapar First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Sarmanbhai Babubhai Kamliya of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for alleged illegal possession of alcohol on 17/08/2025. The court found insufficient corroborating evidence from witnesses (panchas) and determined the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, citing reliance on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the necessity of technical expert evidence and proper witness testimony to confirm seizure and establish direct connection of prohibited articles with the accused. 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. 1164/2025
Court Judgment Summary The Sutrapar First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Sarmanbhai Babubhai Kamliya of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for alleged illegal possession of alcohol on 17/08/2025. The court found insufficient corroborating evidence from witnesses (panchas) and determined the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, citing reliance on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the necessity of technical expert evidence and proper witness testimony to confirm seizure and establish direct connection of prohibited articles with the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts