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.

Case disposed

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

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(E),116(B),81,98(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GULMAMAD @ GULI GULMAMAD HALEPAUTRA

  2. 2.HABIB KASAM HALEPOUTRA

  3. 3.RAM DEVARAJBHAI LADHUBHAI GADHAVI

    Adv. N D CHAUDHARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 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.

  3. 06-Jul-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 26-May-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 04-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 20-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 30-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 08-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 22-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 28-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 12-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 11-Aug-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 31-Jul-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 29-May-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 27-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 26-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 26-Sep-2024

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 27-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 23-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 101/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case