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.
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.HAMIRBHAI LAKHUBHAI MOVANIYA Advocate - P C MAKWANA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
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.
-
06-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Jan-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-May-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Mar-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Feb-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
01-Feb-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Jan-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Dec-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Nov-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Nov-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Sep-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Aug-2024
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Jul-2024
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Jun-2024
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
01-Jun-2024
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-May-2024
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Apr-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Apr-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 532/2024
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