Govt. of Gujarat vs jayeshbhai babubhai solanki Advocate - K J VADHER — 1205/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016702025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1205/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1205/2025

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

805

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)

jayeshbhai babubhai solanki Advocate - K J VADHER

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

Case Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Jayeshbhai Babubhai Solanki of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), filed on September 18, 2025. The court found that while the prosecution alleged illegal alcohol possession, the testimony of the panch (witness) officers and investigative procedure were insufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court applied precedent from Gujarat High Court judgments requiring specific evidence of seizure, quality, and direct connection to the accused—elements lacking in the prosecution's evidence—and granted the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Jayeshbhai Babubhai Solanki of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), filed on September 18, 2025. The court found that while the prosecution alleged illegal alcohol possession, the testimony of the panch (witness) officers and investigative procedure were insufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court applied precedent from Gujarat High Court judgments requiring specific evidence of seizure, quality, and direct connection to the accused—elements lacking in the prosecution's evidence—and granted the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt. 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