Govt. of Gujarat vs AXAYBHAI BHARATBHAI BAMBHANIYA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1213/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(F),65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016782025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1213/2025

Filing Date

10-12-2025

Registration No

1213/2025

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

11186006240980

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(F),65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

AXAYBHAI BHARATBHAI BAMBHANIYA Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

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 Judgment Summary The Sutrapur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Akshaybhai Bhartbhai Bambhaniya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 64(AA) and 64(F), finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key eyewitnesses (panchs) did not corroborate the seizure of prohibited liquor from the accused's premises, and the prosecution could not definitively prove the contraband was recovered from the accused's personal possession or establish direct connection to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Judgment Summary The Sutrapur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Akshaybhai Bhartbhai Bambhaniya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 64(AA) and 64(F), finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key eyewitnesses (panchs) did not corroborate the seizure of prohibited liquor from the accused's premises, and the prosecution could not definitively prove the contraband was recovered from the accused's personal possession or establish direct connection 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