Govt. of Gujarat vs hareshabhai urfe rajeshabhai lakhabhai vaja Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1171/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016362025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1171/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1171/2025
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
929
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
hareshabhai urfe rajeshabhai lakhabhai vaja Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
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
Case Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Haresh (Rajshbhai Lakhabhai Wala) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) on March 16, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the seizure of illicit alcohol, proper evidence regarding quantity and quality was absent, and no direct link connecting the prohibited articles to the accused was established. The court granted the accused the benefit of doubt as per criminal jurisprudence principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Haresh (Rajshbhai Lakhabhai Wala) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) on March 16, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the seizure of illicit alcohol, proper evidence regarding quantity and quality was absent, and no direct link connecting the prohibited articles to the accused was established. The court granted the accused the benefit of doubt as per criminal jurisprudence principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts