Govt. of Gujarat vs jayeshbhai babubhai solanki Advocate - K J VADHER — 1206/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016712025
Filing Number
1206/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1206/2025
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
458
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.jayeshbhai babubhai solanki Advocate - K J VADHER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Sutrapur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Jayeshbhai Babubhai Solanki of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that while contraband alcohol was allegedly recovered from the accused's possession, the prosecution failed to establish crucial facts, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses (panchas) and the proper chain of custody, citing absence of technical expert evidence and proper seizure documentation. Applying established High Court precedents on circumstantial evidence standards in prohibition cases, the court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. 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. 1206/2025
Court Decision Summary The Sutrapur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Jayeshbhai Babubhai Solanki of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that while contraband alcohol was allegedly recovered from the accused's possession, the prosecution failed to establish crucial facts, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses (panchas) and the proper chain of custody, citing absence of technical expert evidence and proper seizure documentation. Applying established High Court precedents on circumstantial evidence standards in prohibition cases, the court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts