Government of Gujarat vs ALLARAKHABHAI AMADBHAI MAKWANA Advocate - N B CHAVDA — 443/2024
Case under Public Gambling Act, 1867 [section 1 18] Section 12. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100005522024
Filing Number
443/2024
Filing Date
22-04-2024
Registration No
443/2024
Registration Date
22-04-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHROL
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11202014240083
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ALLARAKHABHAI AMADBHAI MAKWANA Advocate - N B CHAVDA
IQBALBHAI SUMARBHAI JAKHARA
Adv. N B CHAVDA
ABDULBHAI KARABHAI PATHAN
Adv. N B CHAVDA
SOMABHAI AMBABHAI CHAVADIYA
Adv. N B CHAVDA
KISHORBHAI AMARSHIBHAI CHAVDA
Adv. N B CHAVDA
RAMESHBHAI RUDABHAI CHAVDA
Adv. N B CHAVDA
ISMAILBHAI DAUDBHAI MAKWANA
Adv. N B CHAVDA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 18-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 03-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 01-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted all seven accused persons of gambling charges under the Gambling Act, Section 12, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical defects in the investigation, particularly that the panchnama (formal record) witness admitted he did not read or understand the document before signing it, and the lack of independent corroborating evidence undermined the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted all seven accused persons of gambling charges under the Gambling Act, Section 12, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical defects in the investigation, particularly that the panchnama (formal record) witness admitted he did not read or understand the document before signing it, and the lack of independent corroborating evidence undermined the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts