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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1164/2025

Filing Date

08-12-2025

Registration No

1164/2025

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

736

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65aa

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

saramanbhai babubhai kamaliya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

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

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case