Govt. of Gujarat vs sonalben wo savasibhai vaghela Advocate - H M VAJA — 1198/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016632025
Filing Number
1198/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1198/2025
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
838
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.sonalben wo savasibhai vaghela Advocate - H M VAJA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The Sutrapad Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Sonalben (accused of possessing 4 liters of illegally brewed alcohol on 28/09/2025) under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical gaps in witness credibility (panchas did not corroborate the seizure), insufficient forensic evidence, and lack of proper chain of custody linking the contraband directly to the accused. The court applied precedent emphasizing that conviction requires concrete technical expert evidence and credible witness testimony confirming seizure details. 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. 1198/2025
Summary The Sutrapad Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Sonalben (accused of possessing 4 liters of illegally brewed alcohol on 28/09/2025) under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical gaps in witness credibility (panchas did not corroborate the seizure), insufficient forensic evidence, and lack of proper chain of custody linking the contraband directly to the accused. The court applied precedent emphasizing that conviction requires concrete technical expert evidence and credible witness testimony confirming seizure details. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts