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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1198/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1198/2025

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

838

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)

sonalben wo savasibhai vaghela Advocate - H M VAJA

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

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case