Government of Gujarat vs BHARATBHAI KARABHAI MANDERA Advocate - N H LALANI — 206/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E,81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM040002442025
Filing Number
206/2025
Filing Date
17-Jan-2025
Registration No
206/2025
Registration Date
17-Jan-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11202026240319
Police Station
JAMJODHPUR POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHARATBHAI KARABHAI MANDERA Advocate - N H LALANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: 206/2025 The Jamnagar First Class Judicial Magistrate court acquitted both accused (Bharatbhai Karabhai Mandera and Sarmanabhai Kanabhai Vadhiya) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(I) and 81, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While police witnesses testified about recovering prohibited liquor and a mobile phone from the accused during a raid on 25.04.2024, the court found critical evidentiary gaps—including absence of independent witness corroboration, lack of FSL reports confirming the seized items were contraband, and insufficient evidence establishing the accused's conscious possession of the prohibited materials. The panchas (witnesses) merely acknowledged signing documents without substantively supporting the prosecution's claims, and no evidence established the accused's actual ownership or control over the raid location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
31-Jan-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Jan-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Dec-2025
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
31-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-May-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-May-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Mar-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Feb-2025
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Jan-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Jan-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 206/2025
Case Summary: 206/2025 The Jamnagar First Class Judicial Magistrate court acquitted both accused (Bharatbhai Karabhai Mandera and Sarmanabhai Kanabhai Vadhiya) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(I) and 81, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While police witnesses testified about recovering prohibited liquor and a mobile phone from the accused during a raid on 25.04.2024, the court found critical evidentiary gaps—including absence of independent witness corroboration, lack of FSL reports confirming the seized items were contraband, and insufficient evidence establishing the accused's conscious possession of the prohibited materials. The panchas (witnesses) merely acknowledged signing documents without substantively supporting the prosecution's claims, and no evidence established the accused's actual ownership or control over the raid location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts