Government of Gujarat vs KARNABHAI CHANABHAI MUCHHAR Advocate - N H LALANI — 788/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM040010242025
Filing Number
788/2025
Filing Date
05-07-2025
Registration No
788/2025
Registration Date
05-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11202026250157
Police Station
JAMJODHPUR POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KARNABHAI CHANABHAI MUCHHAR Advocate - N H LALANI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 24-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 16-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 05-01-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted defendant Karnabhai Chanabhai Muchhar of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Although police witnesses testified to recovering prohibited alcohol from the defendant's premises during a raid, the independent witnesses (panchas) who were present during the recovery could not substantiate the seizure details, and no FSL report was produced to confirm the seized material was prohibited liquor, creating insufficient corroboration for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted defendant Karnabhai Chanabhai Muchhar of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Although police witnesses testified to recovering prohibited alcohol from the defendant's premises during a raid, the independent witnesses (panchas) who were present during the recovery could not substantiate the seizure details, and no FSL report was produced to confirm the seized material was prohibited liquor, creating insufficient corroboration for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts