Govt. of Gujarat vs dhaniben w o bhaveshbhai vaghela Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1181/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016462025
Filing Number
1181/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1181/2025
Registration Date
09-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
958
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
-
1.dhaniben w o bhaveshbhai vaghela Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
Judegement
Summary The Sutrapad Judicial Magistrate First Class court acquitted the accused Dhaniben under Section 67(AA) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panch witnesses did not corroborate the seizure of prohibited alcohol from the accused's possession, and insufficient evidence linked the contraband directly to the accused. Applying Supreme Court precedent emphasizing the benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence, the court ruled there was no prospect of conviction and discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
03-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1181/2025
Summary The Sutrapad Judicial Magistrate First Class court acquitted the accused Dhaniben under Section 67(AA) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panch witnesses did not corroborate the seizure of prohibited alcohol from the accused's possession, and insufficient evidence linked the contraband directly to the accused. Applying Supreme Court precedent emphasizing the benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence, the court ruled there was no prospect of conviction and discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts