Government of Gujarat vs GULMAMAD @ GULI GULMAMAD HALEPAUTRA — 101/2024
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(E),116(B),81,98(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th July 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT130002292024
Filing Number
101/2024
Filing Date
23-May-2024
Registration No
101/2024
Registration Date
23-May-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, KHAVDA
Judge
1-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
06-Jul-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 18-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11205022240023
Police Station
KHAVDA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.GULMAMAD @ GULI GULMAMAD HALEPAUTRA
-
2.HABIB KASAM HALEPOUTRA
-
3.RAM DEVARAJBHAI LADHUBHAI GADHAVI
Adv. N D CHAUDHARI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Jul-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: 101/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three defendants (Gulmamad @ Guli, Habib Kasam, and Ram Devarajbhai Gadhavi) of charges under the Prohibition Act and IPC sections 65(A)(I), 116(B), 81, and 98(2). The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient independent corroborating evidence from the panchas (neutral witnesses) regarding actual seizure of prohibited foreign liquor worth Rs. 27,900 from the defendants' premises. Key Reasoning: The court found critical procedural defects: the panchas merely attested documents without providing independent testimony about how materials were discovered; the investigation officer improperly recorded the panchnama; independent witnesses were absent; and the defendants' actual possession of contraband was not conclusively established. Citing Supreme Court precedent (*Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra*), the judge held that panchnama proceedings recorded in violation of CrPC Section 162 lack legal validity when witnesses act as mere attestors rather than providing substantive testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Jul-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-May-2026
Further Statement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-May-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Apr-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Aug-2025
Warrant Of Arrest
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
31-Jul-2025
Warrant Of Arrest
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-May-2025
Warrant Of Arrest
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Feb-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Dec-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Sep-2024
Summons - Notice
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Jun-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-May-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 101/2024
Case Summary: 101/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three defendants (Gulmamad @ Guli, Habib Kasam, and Ram Devarajbhai Gadhavi) of charges under the Prohibition Act and IPC sections 65(A)(I), 116(B), 81, and 98(2). The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient independent corroborating evidence from the panchas (neutral witnesses) regarding actual seizure of prohibited foreign liquor worth Rs. 27,900 from the defendants' premises. Key Reasoning: The court found critical procedural defects: the panchas merely attested documents without providing independent testimony about how materials were discovered; the investigation officer improperly recorded the panchnama; independent witnesses were absent; and the defendants' actual possession of contraband was not conclusively established. Citing Supreme Court precedent (*Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra*), the judge held that panchnama proceedings recorded in violation of CrPC Section 162 lack legal validity when witnesses act as mere attestors rather than providing substantive testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts