Government of Gujarat vs Shantilalbhai Ramanbhai Tadvi Advocate - A A DAYMA — 355/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85(1). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 28th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNR060003822026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

355/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

355/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, GARUDESHWAR

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

28th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11823014250416

Police Station

KEVADIYA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 85(1)

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Shantilalbhai Ramanbhai Tadvi Advocate - A A DAYMA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

28-04-2026

Disposed

10-04-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

01-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

24-03-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

10-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

28-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class Court in Garudeshwar acquitted the accused Shantilal Bhai Raman Bhai Tadvi under the Prohibition Act Section 85(1), giving him the benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found in an intoxicated state with illicit liquor, as independent witnesses (panchas) did not corroborate the prosecution's case and the blood sample report from the FSL was not produced in court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class Court in Garudeshwar acquitted the accused Shantilal Bhai Raman Bhai Tadvi under the Prohibition Act Section 85(1), giving him the benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found in an intoxicated state with illicit liquor, as independent witnesses (panchas) did not corroborate the prosecution's case and the blood sample report from the FSL was not produced in court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, GARUDESHWAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case