Govt. of Gujarat vs LAKHIBEN W/O LAKHAMANBHAI RAMSHIBHAI VAJA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1182/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016472025
Filing Number
1182/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1182/2025
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
756
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.LAKHIBEN W/O LAKHAMANBHAI RAMSHIBHAI VAJA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted the accused Lakhiben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding her not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the case conclusively through witness testimony—particularly the panch (witness) statements were not corroborated and the investigation procedure was questionable. The court found insufficient evidence linking the prohibited alcohol directly to the accused's possession and emphasized that benefit of doubt must favor the accused in criminal jurisprudence. 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. 1182/2025
Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted the accused Lakhiben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding her not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the case conclusively through witness testimony—particularly the panch (witness) statements were not corroborated and the investigation procedure was questionable. The court found insufficient evidence linking the prohibited alcohol directly to the accused's possession and emphasized that benefit of doubt must favor the accused in criminal jurisprudence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts