Government of Gujarat vs BHIKHABHAI CHANABHAI @ NAJABHAI KUCHHADIYA Advocate - S.D.PARMAR — 71/2021

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B,65E,81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 20th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPB040001102021

Case disposed

Filing Number

71/2021

Filing Date

20-02-2021

Registration No

71/2021

Registration Date

20-02-2021

Court

TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA

Judge

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

Decision Date

20th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

306

Police Station

KUTIYANA POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 66-1-B,65E,81

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

BHIKHABHAI CHANABHAI @ NAJABHAI KUCHHADIYA Advocate - S.D.PARMAR

Hearing History

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

20-04-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

09-02-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

08-01-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

11-12-2025

WARRANT OF ARREST

Final Orders / Judgements

20-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court acquitted the accused Bhikhabhai Chanabhai (Najabhai Kuchhadiya) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 54(I), 65(E), and 81, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to weak and contradictory witness evidence. The court held that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible and their testimonies were inconsistent, while the independent witnesses and investigating officer's evidence did not adequately support the charges of illegal possession and sale of liquor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused Bhikhabhai Chanabhai (Najabhai Kuchhadiya) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 54(I), 65(E), and 81, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to weak and contradictory witness evidence. The court held that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible and their testimonies were inconsistent, while the independent witnesses and investigating officer's evidence did not adequately support the charges of illegal possession and sale of liquor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case