Govt. of Gujarat vs jiviben mandabhai solanki Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1172/2025

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: GJGS050016372025

Filing Number

1172/2025

Filing Date

08-Dec-2025

Registration No

1172/2025

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

975

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.jiviben mandabhai solanki Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused, Jiviben (w/o Mandabhai Palabhai Solanki), under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act on March 16, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the seizure properly, and the police investigation had procedural deficiencies. The court benefited the accused with the doubt and discharged her as not guilty. 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. 1172/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused, Jiviben (w/o Mandabhai Palabhai Solanki), under Section 65(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act on March 16, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the seizure properly, and the police investigation had procedural deficiencies. The court benefited the accused with the doubt and discharged her as not guilty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case