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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016322025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1167/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1167/2025
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
859
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
ranjanben urfe sajjn prakashbhai manjibhai chadmiya Advocate - M R RATHOD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 12-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts