Govt. of Gujarat vs GAUTAMBHAI KARSANBHAI CHUDASMA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1183/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),98(2),99,81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016482025
Filing Number
1183/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1183/2025
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
11186006240701
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.GAUTAMBHAI KARSANBHAI CHUDASMA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
Judegement
The court acquitted the accused, Gautamabhai Karshanbhai Chudasama, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 65(AA), 98(2), 99, 81), finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the panchas (witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure of prohibited liquor and mobile phones, and the investigation procedure was questionable, lacking proper technical evidence and establishing no direct link between the accused and the recovered contraband items. 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. 1183/2025
The court acquitted the accused, Gautamabhai Karshanbhai Chudasama, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 65(AA), 98(2), 99, 81), finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the panchas (witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure of prohibited liquor and mobile phones, and the investigation procedure was questionable, lacking proper technical evidence and establishing no direct link between the accused and the recovered contraband items. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts