Government of Gujarat vs AJAYBHAI HIMATBHAI CHAUHAN Advocate - M D JADEJA — 287/2021
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-AA,116-B,81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 19th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT090004262021
Filing Number
287/2021
Filing Date
22-03-2021
Registration No
287/2021
Registration Date
22-03-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, BHACHAU
Judge
1-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11993001200391
Police Station
SAMAKHIYALI POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
AJAYBHAI HIMATBHAI CHAUHAN Advocate - M D JADEJA
MULJI@VALABHAI NASHABHAI CHHANGA
HITENDRASINH@HITUBHA NAVLSINH JADEJA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 24-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 03-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 27-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court of Bhachau, Kutch acquitted all three accused persons of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 65(a)(a), 116(b), and 81) for illegal possession of beer. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the complainant's version, and the seizure procedure was questionable. The court ruled that mere possession of contraband requires exclusive and conscious possession, which was not established, and cited Supreme Court precedents requiring strong evidence in such cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court of Bhachau, Kutch acquitted all three accused persons of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 65(a)(a), 116(b), and 81) for illegal possession of beer. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the complainant's version, and the seizure procedure was questionable. The court ruled that mere possession of contraband requires exclusive and conscious possession, which was not established, and cited Supreme Court precedents requiring strong evidence in such 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