Government of Gujarat vs HAMIRBHAI LAKHUBHAI MOVANIYA Advocate - P C MAKWANA — 532/2024

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E, 116B, 81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM040006272024

Filing Number

532/2024

Filing Date

18-Apr-2024

Registration No

532/2024

Registration Date

18-Apr-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

06-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 24-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11202026230544

Police Station

JAMJODHPUR POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E, 116B, 81

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HAMIRBHAI LAKHUBHAI MOVANIYA Advocate - P C MAKWANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 532/2024 Court Decision: The defendant, Hamirbhai Lakhubbai Movaniya, was acquitted of charges under the Prohibition Act sections 65E, 116(B), and 81. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that contraband alcohol recovered from the defendant's premises was in his knowing possession or control. Key Reasoning: While police witnesses testified about the seizure of 54 bottles of English whiskey valued at ₹27,000 during a raid, the independent panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the prosecution's narrative. Critical evidentiary gaps included: absence of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) reports confirming the seized material was prohibited liquor, lack of independent witness testimony, no property documentation proving ownership of the premises, and failure to establish the defendant's conscious possession. The court held that police testimony alone, without independent corroboration, was insufficient to meet the burden of proof in prohibition cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 27-Jan-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 29-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 24-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 23-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 25-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 28-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 26-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 19-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 19-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 29-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 24-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 01-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 06-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 17-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 30-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 16-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 21-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 03-Aug-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 02-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 07-Jun-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 01-Jun-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 09-May-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 18-Apr-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 18-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 532/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 532/2024 Court Decision: The defendant, Hamirbhai Lakhubbai Movaniya, was acquitted of charges under the Prohibition Act sections 65E, 116(B), and 81. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that contraband alcohol recovered from the defendant's premises was in his knowing possession or control. Key Reasoning: While police witnesses testified about the seizure of 54 bottles of English whiskey valued at ₹27,000 during a raid, the independent panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the prosecution's narrative. Critical evidentiary gaps included: absence of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) reports confirming the seized material was prohibited liquor, lack of independent witness testimony, no property documentation proving ownership of the premises, and failure to establish the defendant's conscious possession. The court held that police testimony alone, without independent corroboration, was insufficient to meet the burden of proof in prohibition cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case