Govt. of Gujarat vs shantiben boghabhai vansh Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1203/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016682025
Filing Number
1203/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1203/2025
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
991
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.shantiben boghabhai vansh Advocate - V D KAMLIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
Judegement
Summary The Sutrapar First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted Shantiben Mandanbhai Boghabhai of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for illegally possessing 15 liters of country liquor. The court found that while prohibited alcohol was recovered from the accused's possession on 29 November 2025, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient witness corroboration, lack of technical evidence (FSL report), and procedural irregularities in the investigation, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents on burden of proof in such cases. 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. 1203/2025
Summary The Sutrapar First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted Shantiben Mandanbhai Boghabhai of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for illegally possessing 15 liters of country liquor. The court found that while prohibited alcohol was recovered from the accused's possession on 29 November 2025, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient witness corroboration, lack of technical evidence (FSL report), and procedural irregularities in the investigation, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents on burden of proof in such cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts