Govt. of Gujarat vs RANJANBEN URFE SAJJAN W O PRAKASHABHAI MANAJIBHAI CHADAMIYA Advocate - M R RATHOD — 1176/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa65f. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016412025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1176/2025

Filing Date

08-12-2025

Registration No

1176/2025

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

666

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65aa65f

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

RANJANBEN URFE SAJJAN W O PRAKASHABHAI MANAJIBHAI CHADAMIYA Advocate - M R RATHOD

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

03-04-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

03-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Ranjanbhen (alias Sajjan) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 61(a) and 61(f), finding insufficient evidence. The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting that the panchas (witnesses) did not adequately support the seizure of prohibited liquor from the accused's possession, and proper procedure and corroboration were absent. The accused was acquitted and released, benefiting from the principle of benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Ranjanbhen (alias Sajjan) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 61(a) and 61(f), finding insufficient evidence. The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting that the panchas (witnesses) did not adequately support the seizure of prohibited liquor from the accused's possession, and proper procedure and corroboration were absent. The accused was acquitted and released, benefiting from the principle of benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case