Government of Gujarat vs AARIF @ BHURO YUSUFBHAI GAMBHIR Advocate - C R BHARADA — 1533/2022

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(E),116(B),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 08th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN060016712022

Case disposed

Filing Number

1533/2022

Filing Date

10-08-2022

Registration No

1533/2022

Registration Date

10-08-2022

Court

TALUKA COURT, MALIA

Judge

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

Decision Date

08th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203036220090

Police Station

MALIYA HATINA POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(E),116(B),81

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

AARIF @ BHURO YUSUFBHAI GAMBHIR Advocate - C R BHARADA

Hearing History

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

08-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

23-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

13-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

09-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

08-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1533/2022 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Hirenabhai Prabhu Sejpal, Prabul Lalitakumar Tanna, and Aarif Ushrabhai Gambhir) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegal possession and sale of alcohol. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient witness testimony, procedural irregularities, and lack of independent corroboration of the seized liquor evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1533/2022 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Hirenabhai Prabhu Sejpal, Prabul Lalitakumar Tanna, and Aarif Ushrabhai Gambhir) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegal possession and sale of alcohol. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient witness testimony, procedural irregularities, and lack of independent corroboration of the seized liquor evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MALIA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case