Govt. of Gujarat vs naranbhai rajabhai bambhaniya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1174/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016392025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1174/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1174/2025
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
905
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
naranbhai rajabhai bambhaniya 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
Court Decision Summary The Sutrapur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Naranbhai Rajabhai Bambhaniya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), for allegedly possessing 3 liters of illegal alcohol on October 24, 2025. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, noting that the panchas (witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure, and there was insufficient technical evidence and proper identification of the seized contraband material linking it directly to the accused, citing precedent from the Gujarat High Court that conviction requires concrete evidence establishing the link between the accused and prohibited articles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Sutrapur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Naranbhai Rajabhai Bambhaniya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), for allegedly possessing 3 liters of illegal alcohol on October 24, 2025. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, noting that the panchas (witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure, and there was insufficient technical evidence and proper identification of the seized contraband material linking it directly to the accused, citing precedent from the Gujarat High Court that conviction requires concrete evidence establishing the link between the accused and prohibited articles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts