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
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
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
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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts