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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1190/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1190/2025

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

914

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)

MINABEN W O RAJUBHAI KESHUBHAI CHADMIYA Advocate - H M VAJA

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

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case