Govt. of Gujarat vs ratanben w o arashibhai vaja Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1195/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016602025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1195/2025
Filing Date
09-12-2025
Registration No
1195/2025
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
948
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ratanben w o arashibhai vaja Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
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
Summary The Sutrapad Judicial Magistrate First Class court acquitted accused Ratnaben (wife of Arshibhai Raja) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A). The prosecution alleged she illegally possessed 0.2 liters of alcoholic liquor on November 16, 2025. The court found the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting that key panchas (witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure, proper technical evidence was absent, and the seizure procedure lacked sufficient neutral witnesses, therefore acquitting her on benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sutrapad Judicial Magistrate First Class court acquitted accused Ratnaben (wife of Arshibhai Raja) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A). The prosecution alleged she illegally possessed 0.2 liters of alcoholic liquor on November 16, 2025. The court found the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting that key panchas (witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure, proper technical evidence was absent, and the seizure procedure lacked sufficient neutral witnesses, therefore acquitting her on benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts