Govt. of Gujarat vs RAVINABEN W O RAKESHBHAI SOLANKI Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1193/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016582025

Filing Number

1193/2025

Filing Date

09-Dec-2025

Registration No

1193/2025

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

987

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govt. of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVINABEN W O RAKESHBHAI SOLANKI Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The court acquitted the accused Ravinaabben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidential gaps: the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution's case, proper procedure was not followed during seizure, and the link between the prohibited articles and the accused was not established. Applying precedents from Gujarat High Court judgments, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt under criminal jurisprudence principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 12-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1193/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused Ravinaabben of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidential gaps: the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution's case, proper procedure was not followed during seizure, and the link between the prohibited articles and the accused was not established. Applying precedents from Gujarat High Court judgments, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt under criminal jurisprudence principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case