Government of Gujarat vs ARVINDSINH RANUBHA JADEJA Advocate - N A GARVA — 1378/2024
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(E),116(B),81,98(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 18th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT080019842024
Filing Number
1378/2024
Filing Date
23-12-2024
Registration No
1378/2024
Registration Date
23-12-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, RAPAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
18th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
FIR Details
FIR Number
11993015240038
Police Station
BALASAR POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ARVINDSINH RANUBHA JADEJA Advocate - N A GARVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 09-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 27-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Arvind Singh Ranu Bha Jadeja, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), 116B, 81, 98(2) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole witness testimony came from biased police witnesses with vested interests, and no independent witnesses supported the case. The court held that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and where doubt exists, the benefit must go to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Arvind Singh Ranu Bha Jadeja, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), 116B, 81, 98(2) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole witness testimony came from biased police witnesses with vested interests, and no independent witnesses supported the case. The court held that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and where doubt exists, the benefit must go to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts