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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1183/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1183/2025

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

11186006240701

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),98(2),99,81

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

GAUTAMBHAI KARSANBHAI CHUDASMA 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

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case