Government of Gujarat vs SUNILKUMAR DILIPBHAI SOLANKI Advocate - M B RAJPUT — 1345/2021
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH050017862021
Filing Number
1345/2021
Filing Date
27-Sep-2021
Registration No
1345/2021
Registration Date
27-Sep-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, KAPADVANJ
Judge
5-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
06-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204026210264
Police Station
KAPADWANJ TOWN POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SUNILKUMAR DILIPBHAI SOLANKI Advocate - M B RAJPUT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: 1345/2021 The court rejected the Government of Gujarat's case against accused Sunilkumar Dilipbhai Solanki, acquitting him of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a credible case—police witnesses could not corroborate key details about the alleged seizure of 23 liters of illicit liquor, and independent witnesses who signed the recovery documents contradicted the prosecution's claims in their testimonies. The court determined that without independent corroborating evidence supporting the charge, the burden of proof had not been met, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
17-Mar-2026
Judgement
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
24-Feb-2026
Further Statement
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
10-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
13-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
08-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
12-Nov-2025
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
19-Sep-2025
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
14-Aug-2025
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
05-Jul-2025
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
12-May-2025
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
17-Feb-2025
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
26-Nov-2024
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
03-Sep-2024
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
07-Jun-2024
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
11-Mar-2024
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
12-Dec-2023
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
14-Sep-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
21-Jun-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
19-Apr-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
22-Feb-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Jan-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Nov-2022
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Aug-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
26-May-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
07-Apr-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
07-Feb-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
30-Nov-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Sep-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 1345/2021
Case Summary: 1345/2021 The court rejected the Government of Gujarat's case against accused Sunilkumar Dilipbhai Solanki, acquitting him of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a credible case—police witnesses could not corroborate key details about the alleged seizure of 23 liters of illicit liquor, and independent witnesses who signed the recovery documents contradicted the prosecution's claims in their testimonies. The court determined that without independent corroborating evidence supporting the charge, the burden of proof had not been met, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts