Government of Gujarat vs SULTANBHAI ABDULBHAI MAKAWANA Advocate - N B CHAVDA — 185/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100001892026
Filing Number
185/2026
Filing Date
15-01-2026
Registration No
185/2026
Registration Date
15-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHROL
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11202014250491
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SULTANBHAI ABDULBHAI MAKAWANA Advocate - N B CHAVDA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 15-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY: 185/2026 The court acquitted accused Sultanbhai Abdulbhai Makawana of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(F) and 65(I), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The sole witness (a panch/panchnama signatory) provided no substantive testimony supporting the charges, and the complainant/police witness testimony was not recorded, creating critical evidentiary gaps. The court determined the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the alleged recovery of illicit liquor from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: 185/2026 The court acquitted accused Sultanbhai Abdulbhai Makawana of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(F) and 65(I), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The sole witness (a panch/panchnama signatory) provided no substantive testimony supporting the charges, and the complainant/police witness testimony was not recorded, creating critical evidentiary gaps. The court determined the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the alleged recovery of illicit liquor from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts