Government of Gujarat vs GOBARBHAI BHARABHAI JAKHANIYA Advocate - N B CHAVDA — 1042/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM100013292025

Case disposed

Filing Number

1042/2025

Filing Date

30-12-2025

Registration No

1042/2025

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

11202014250074

Police Station

DHROL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

GOBARBHAI BHARABHAI JAKHANIYA Advocate - N B CHAVDA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

16-03-2026

Disposed

20-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

23-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

30-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court acquitted the accused Gobarbhai Bharabhai Jakhaniya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for allegedly possessing 3 liters of illegal liquor worth Rs. 600. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing inadequate witness testimony (only a panch witness who merely confirmed signing the memo without substantive evidence) and the absence of independent police witnesses. The court determined that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish the prohibited material was actually recovered from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused Gobarbhai Bharabhai Jakhaniya of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for allegedly possessing 3 liters of illegal liquor worth Rs. 600. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing inadequate witness testimony (only a panch witness who merely confirmed signing the memo without substantive evidence) and the absence of independent police witnesses. The court determined that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish the prohibited material was actually recovered from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DHROL All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case