Govt. of Gujarat vs rekhaben w/o sureshbhai bariya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1196/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016612025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1196/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1196/2025

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

986

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)

rekhaben w/o sureshbhai bariya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

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 Sutrapar Magistrate Court acquitted Rekhaben (accused) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in the prosecution's evidence, including lack of proper witness corroboration, absence of independent panch witnesses who could substantiate the seizure, and failure to establish the quality and quantity of the confiscated alcohol. Applying established legal principles on the benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence, the court discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sutrapar Magistrate Court acquitted Rekhaben (accused) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in the prosecution's evidence, including lack of proper witness corroboration, absence of independent panch witnesses who could substantiate the seizure, and failure to establish the quality and quantity of the confiscated alcohol. Applying established legal principles on the benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence, the court discharged the accused. 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