Government of Gujarat vs GANI AMAD HODA Advocate - A A ANSARI — 37/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 384,328,506,114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: GJKT010013142023
Filing Number
37/2023
Filing Date
13-03-2023
Registration No
37/2023
Registration Date
13-03-2023
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ
Judge
29-7th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11205043220287
Police Station
BHUJ CITY B DIVI POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. P V VANIYA
Respondent(s)
GANI AMAD HODA Advocate - A A ANSARI
NAJMABEN JUSAB LANDHA
Adv. M H RATHOD
Hearing History
Judge: 29-7th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 25-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 11-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 28-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The 7th Additional Sessions Judge at Bhuj, Gujarat acquitted both defendants in Sessions Cases No. 37/2023 and 113/2023 on April 1, 2026, finding them not guilty under IPC Sections 384, 328, 506, 114 and IT Act Section 67(A). The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the charges of extortion, administering intoxicating substances, criminal intimidation through obscene video threats, and abetting these crimes beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroborating evidence from key witnesses and lack of material proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The 7th Additional Sessions Judge at Bhuj, Gujarat acquitted both defendants in Sessions Cases No. 37/2023 and 113/2023 on April 1, 2026, finding them not guilty under IPC Sections 384, 328, 506, 114 and IT Act Section 67(A). The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the charges of extortion, administering intoxicating substances, criminal intimidation through obscene video threats, and abetting these crimes beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroborating evidence from key witnesses and lack of material proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts