Govt. of Gujarat vs ravibhai karashnbhai vaja Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1187/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016522025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1187/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1187/2025

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

784

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

ravibhai karashnbhai 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 The Sutrapur Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted the accused, Ravibhai Karshnbhai Waja, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), citing insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration from the mandatory witnesses (panchas). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a convincing case linking the prohibited alcohol to the accused's possession, as the panch witnesses did not support the seizure procedure, and technical evidence was absent. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court gave the accused the benefit of doubt under criminal jurisprudence principles and acquitted him accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sutrapur Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted the accused, Ravibhai Karshnbhai Waja, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), citing insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration from the mandatory witnesses (panchas). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a convincing case linking the prohibited alcohol to the accused's possession, as the panch witnesses did not support the seizure procedure, and technical evidence was absent. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court gave the accused the benefit of doubt under criminal jurisprudence principles and acquitted him accordingly. 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