GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT @ THE STATE vs JATINSINH ANTARSINH BHATI Advocate - S A RAMANI — 3415/2023
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,98(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 20th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT030043012023
Filing Number
3415/2023
Filing Date
04-12-2023
Registration No
3415/2023
Registration Date
04-12-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA
Judge
3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
162
Police Station
MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT @ THE STATE
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
JATINSINH ANTARSINH BHATI Advocate - S A RAMANI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 07-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 03-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 01-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Judgment Summary The Additional Judicial Magistrate, Mundra (Cri. Case No. 3415/2023) acquitted accused Jatinsinh Antarsinh Bhati of charges under the Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that crucial evidence from panchas (witnesses) who allegedly conducted the raid could not corroborate the prosecution's claims, and without independent corroboration of police testimony, conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police evidence in prohibition cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Judgment Summary The Additional Judicial Magistrate, Mundra (Cri. Case No. 3415/2023) acquitted accused Jatinsinh Antarsinh Bhati of charges under the Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that crucial evidence from panchas (witnesses) who allegedly conducted the raid could not corroborate the prosecution's claims, and without independent corroboration of police testimony, conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police evidence in prohibition cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts