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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1182/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1182/2025

Registration Date

09-12-2025

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

756

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65aa

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

LAKHIBEN W/O LAKHAMANBHAI RAMSHIBHAI VAJA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

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 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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case