THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs JITENDRASINH NARAYANSINH RAJPUT Advocate - J S GAMIT — 42/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNV110000432026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
42/2026
Filing Date
12-01-2026
Registration No
42/2026
Registration Date
12-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGHAI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11219007250527
Police Station
WAGHAI POLICE STATION - DANGS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
JITENDRASINH NARAYANSINH RAJPUT Advocate - J S GAMIT
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 05-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 16-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Gujarat High Court acquitted the accused Jitendrasinh Narayanasinh Rajput in an IMFL (illegal liquor) case, finding that the prosecution failed to prove possession of contraband liquor beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that conviction cannot rest solely on police testimony without independent corroborating evidence, and the prosecution did not establish that the seized shop belonged to the accused or that bottles contained original seals as required under the Prohibition Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Gujarat High Court acquitted the accused Jitendrasinh Narayanasinh Rajput in an IMFL (illegal liquor) case, finding that the prosecution failed to prove possession of contraband liquor beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that conviction cannot rest solely on police testimony without independent corroborating evidence, and the prosecution did not establish that the seized shop belonged to the accused or that bottles contained original seals as required under the Prohibition Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts