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
Filing Number
1196/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1196/2025
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
986
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.rekhaben w/o sureshbhai bariya Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-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.
-
03-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1196/2025
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.
Explore other courts