Govt. of Gujarat vs jetha jesing gohil Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1173/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016382025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1173/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1173/2025
Registration Date
08-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
03rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
785
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
jetha jesing gohil Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 03-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 12-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sutrapar Judicial Magistrate Court (Gujarat) acquitted Jethabhai Jetsingham Gohil of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical deficiencies: witnesses (panchas) did not support the prosecution narrative, only police officers testified as witnesses despite the seizure occurring in a public area where civilian witnesses should have been present, and the evidence lacked proper corroboration regarding the quality and origin of the seized alcohol. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court ruled that when conviction prospects are dim, the court should not waste time completing trial formalities, and granted the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt, ordering his acquittal and destruction of seized materials after appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sutrapar Judicial Magistrate Court (Gujarat) acquitted Jethabhai Jetsingham Gohil of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical deficiencies: witnesses (panchas) did not support the prosecution narrative, only police officers testified as witnesses despite the seizure occurring in a public area where civilian witnesses should have been present, and the evidence lacked proper corroboration regarding the quality and origin of the seized alcohol. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court ruled that when conviction prospects are dim, the court should not waste time completing trial formalities, and granted the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt, ordering his acquittal and destruction of seized materials after appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts