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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(f)

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

03-04-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

03-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case