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
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
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
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 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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts