Govt. of Gujarat vs ranjanben urfe sajjn prakashbhai manjibhai chadmiya Advocate - M R RATHOD — 1167/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016322025

Filing Number

1167/2025

Filing Date

08-Dec-2025

Registration No

1167/2025

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

859

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ranjanben urfe sajjn prakashbhai manjibhai chadmiya Advocate - M R RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted the accused, Ranjanbhen (also called Sajjan), of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing 3 liters of illicit alcohol, finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the prohibited articles and the accused, and that witness testimony from the panchas (respectable witnesses) was not adequately corroborative of the seizure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 12-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 08-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1167/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused, Ranjanbhen (also called Sajjan), of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing 3 liters of illicit alcohol, finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the prohibited articles and the accused, and that witness testimony from the panchas (respectable witnesses) was not adequately corroborative of the seizure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case