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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM100001892026

Filing Number

185/2026

Filing Date

15-Jan-2026

Registration No

185/2026

Registration Date

15-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHROL

Judge

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

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11202014250491

Police Station

DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SULTANBHAI ABDULBHAI MAKAWANA Advocate - N B CHAVDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 15-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 15-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 185/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case