Govt. of Gujarat vs nareshabhai rayasingbhai nakum Advocate - A R BARAD — 1212/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(f). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016772025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1212/2025
Filing Date
10-12-2025
Registration No
1212/2025
Registration Date
10-12-2025
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
940
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
nareshabhai rayasingbhai nakum Advocate - A R BARAD
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
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Nareshbhai Raysing Bhaith Nakum, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(F), finding the prosecution failed to conclusively prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical procedural lapses including reliance solely on police witnesses as panchas (neutral observers) instead of independent witnesses, lack of forensic evidence confirming the seized alcohol, and failure to establish a clear link between the prohibited articles and the accused. Applying the principle that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in criminal jurisprudence, the court discharged the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Nareshbhai Raysing Bhaith Nakum, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(F), finding the prosecution failed to conclusively prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical procedural lapses including reliance solely on police witnesses as panchas (neutral observers) instead of independent witnesses, lack of forensic evidence confirming the seized alcohol, and failure to establish a clear link between the prohibited articles and the accused. Applying the principle that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in criminal jurisprudence, the court discharged the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts