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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM100005522024

Filing Number

443/2024

Filing Date

22-Apr-2024

Registration No

443/2024

Registration Date

22-Apr-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHROL

Judge

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

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11202014240083

Police Station

DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Public Gambling Act, 1867 [Section 1 18] Section 12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ALLARAKHABHAI AMADBHAI MAKWANA Advocate - N B CHAVDA

  2. 2.IQBALBHAI SUMARBHAI JAKHARA

    Adv. N B CHAVDA

  3. 3.ABDULBHAI KARABHAI PATHAN

    Adv. N B CHAVDA

  4. 4.SOMABHAI AMBABHAI CHAVADIYA

    Adv. N B CHAVDA

  5. 5.KISHORBHAI AMARSHIBHAI CHAVDA

    Adv. N B CHAVDA

  6. 6.RAMESHBHAI RUDABHAI CHAVDA

    Adv. N B CHAVDA

  7. 7.ISMAILBHAI DAUDBHAI MAKWANA

    Adv. N B CHAVDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 01-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 18-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 25-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 21-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 15-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 24-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 26-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 13-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 08-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 20-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 22-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 20-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 05-Aug-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 22-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 15-Jun-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 11-Jun-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 06-Jun-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 22-Apr-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 22-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 443/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case