Govt. of Gujarat vs shantiben w o mandanbhai boghabhai vansh Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1179/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016442025

Filing Number

1179/2025

Filing Date

08-Dec-2025

Registration No

1179/2025

Registration Date

08-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

03-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

731

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.shantiben w o mandanbhai boghabhai vansh Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Court Decision Summary The Sutrapur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Shantiben (daughter of Mandanbhai Boghabhai) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A) on April 3, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroborating witness testimony from the panchas (witnesses) and lack of technical/forensic evidence to establish the seizure of prohibited liquor from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Apr-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. 1179/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sutrapur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Shantiben (daughter of Mandanbhai Boghabhai) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A) on April 3, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroborating witness testimony from the panchas (witnesses) and lack of technical/forensic evidence to establish the seizure of prohibited liquor from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case