Government of Gujarat vs Ramo @ Petaro Devayatbhai Mori Advocate - S R DODIYA — 603/2024
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(E),98(2),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 29th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN110007652024
Filing Number
603/2024
Filing Date
08-11-2024
Registration No
603/2024
Registration Date
08-11-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, BHESAN
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11203007240237
Police Station
BHESAN POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Ramo @ Petaro Devayatbhai Mori Advocate - S R DODIYA
Dayabhai Nathabhai Kodiyatar
Adv. S R DODIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 25-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 23-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 603/2024 The court acquitted both accused—Ramo @ Petaro Devayatbhai Mori and Dayabhai Nathabhai Kodiyatar—of charges under the Prohibition Act and IPC sections 65(f), 88(2), 91. The court found that while police recovered illicit alcohol worth ₹5,000 from their possession, the recovery panchnama (official record) lacked credible witness support; the five witnesses to the recovery did not corroborate the prosecution's case in their testimony, and independent verification was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 603/2024 The court acquitted both accused—Ramo @ Petaro Devayatbhai Mori and Dayabhai Nathabhai Kodiyatar—of charges under the Prohibition Act and IPC sections 65(f), 88(2), 91. The court found that while police recovered illicit alcohol worth ₹5,000 from their possession, the recovery panchnama (official record) lacked credible witness support; the five witnesses to the recovery did not corroborate the prosecution's case in their testimony, and independent verification was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts