Government of Gujarat vs RAMDEVSINH UDUBHA JADEJA Advocate - M D GADHAVI — 1395/2025
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 19th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT080017672025
Filing Number
1395/2025
Filing Date
06-Nov-2025
Registration No
1395/2025
Registration Date
06-Nov-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, RAPAR
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
19-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 21-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11993010250160
Police Station
RAHPAR POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAMDEVSINH UDUBHA JADEJA Advocate - M D GADHAVI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted the accused, Ramdeo Singh Udubahjadeja, of charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, finding insufficient evidence of exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband seized. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as critical witness testimonies were incomplete and key procedural safeguards were not properly followed during the investigation and evidence collection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-May-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Apr-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1395/2025
The court acquitted the accused, Ramdeo Singh Udubahjadeja, of charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, finding insufficient evidence of exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband seized. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as critical witness testimonies were incomplete and key procedural safeguards were not properly followed during the investigation and evidence collection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts