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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1203/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1203/2025

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

991

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)

shantiben boghabhai vansh Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

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 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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case