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
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
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
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 03-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 12-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts