Government of Gujarat vs VISHABHAI DANABHAI GARSAR Advocate - J L TANK — 14549/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(E),81,98(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM020205422025

Filing Number

14549/2025

Filing Date

17-Dec-2025

Registration No

14549/2025

Registration Date

17-Dec-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT JAMNAGAR

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11202057250582

Police Station

SIKKA POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(E),81,98(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VISHABHAI DANABHAI GARSAR Advocate - J L TANK

  2. 2.SUKHDEVSINH URFE SUKHUBHA BHANUBHA CHUDASAMA

  3. 3.DAYABHAI URFE RAMESHBHAI CHANABHAI CHAVDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 14549/2025 The court acquitted all three defendants of Prohibition Act violations after finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while the defendants were found with illicit liquor during a police raid, the prosecution's case relied entirely on police witnesses without independent corroboration, and the panchnama (seizure document) witnesses could not definitively identify the defendants or confirm the seized items were in their exclusive possession. The court applied the "benefit of doubt" doctrine, ruling that possession of contraband cannot be established through police testimony alone without independent evidence, and ordered the defendants' acquittal under CrPC Section 248(1) and the Prohibition Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 03-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 06-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 02-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 16-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 17-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 14549/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 14549/2025 The court acquitted all three defendants of Prohibition Act violations after finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while the defendants were found with illicit liquor during a police raid, the prosecution's case relied entirely on police witnesses without independent corroboration, and the panchnama (seizure document) witnesses could not definitively identify the defendants or confirm the seized items were in their exclusive possession. The court applied the "benefit of doubt" doctrine, ruling that possession of contraband cannot be established through police testimony alone without independent evidence, and ordered the defendants' acquittal under CrPC Section 248(1) and the Prohibition Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case