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
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
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
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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts