Govt. of Gujarat vs MINABEN W O RAJUBHAI KESHUBHAI CHADMIYA Advocate - H M VAJA — 1190/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016552025
Filing Number
1190/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1190/2025
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
914
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MINABEN W O RAJUBHAI KESHUBHAI CHADMIYA Advocate - H M VAJA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Sutraparada First Class Magistrate Court acquitted accused Minaben (W/O Rajubhai Keshubhai Chadmiya) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A) for alleged illegal possession of 3 liters of alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting that the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution's claims, crucial evidence from technical experts (FSL) was absent, and the seizure procedure lacked proper documentation and independent witness corroboration. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court gave the accused the benefit of doubt and discharged her. 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. 1190/2025
Court Decision Summary The Sutraparada First Class Magistrate Court acquitted accused Minaben (W/O Rajubhai Keshubhai Chadmiya) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A) for alleged illegal possession of 3 liters of alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting that the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution's claims, crucial evidence from technical experts (FSL) was absent, and the seizure procedure lacked proper documentation and independent witness corroboration. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court gave the accused the benefit of doubt and discharged her. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts