Government of Gujarat vs KUVARBEN URFE KUVEDI W/O CHANDUBHAI BHIKHABHAI JAKHANIYA Advocate - N B CHAVDA — 1035/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM100013222025
Filing Number
1035/2025
Filing Date
30-12-2025
Registration No
1035/2025
Registration Date
30-12-2025
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
11202014250150
Police Station
DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
KUVARBEN URFE KUVEDI W/O CHANDUBHAI BHIKHABHAI JAKHANIYA Advocate - N B CHAVDA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 23-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 30-12-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1035/2025 The court acquitted the accused, Kuvarben (also known as Kuvedi), of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65A(A) for unlawful possession of alcohol. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole witness (a panch/mediator) only confirmed signing the seizure memo but could not substantiate the recovery or substantiate that the contraband was actually prohibited under law. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and contradictory, with no independent corroborating witnesses or police testimony, rendering reasonable doubt about whether the confiscated material was genuinely a prohibited substance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1035/2025 The court acquitted the accused, Kuvarben (also known as Kuvedi), of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65A(A) for unlawful possession of alcohol. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole witness (a panch/mediator) only confirmed signing the seizure memo but could not substantiate the recovery or substantiate that the contraband was actually prohibited under law. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and contradictory, with no independent corroborating witnesses or police testimony, rendering reasonable doubt about whether the confiscated material was genuinely a prohibited substance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts