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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1206/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1206/2025

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

458

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65aa

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

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case