Govt. of Gujarat vs jiviben w o mandabhai palabhai solanki Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1166/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016312025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1166/2025

Filing Date

08-12-2025

Registration No

1166/2025

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

877

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)

jiviben w o mandabhai palabhai solanki 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

Summary The Sutrapur Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Court acquitted the accused, Jiviben (daughter of Mandabhai Palabhai Solanki), of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing 2 liters of illegal alcohol on October 16, 2015. The court found reasonable doubts in the prosecution's case, particularly noting that the panch witnesses (mandatory witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure details, proper technical evidence was absent, and the investigation appeared flawed, making it impossible to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was acquitted and released, with seized contraband to be destroyed after appeal periods expire. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sutrapur Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Court acquitted the accused, Jiviben (daughter of Mandabhai Palabhai Solanki), of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing 2 liters of illegal alcohol on October 16, 2015. The court found reasonable doubts in the prosecution's case, particularly noting that the panch witnesses (mandatory witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure details, proper technical evidence was absent, and the investigation appeared flawed, making it impossible to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was acquitted and released, with seized contraband to be destroyed after appeal periods expire. 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