Government of Gujarat vs KARA URFE RUDA DEVRAJBHAI KODIYATAR Advocate - S P LAKHALANI — 426/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB040005022025
Filing Number
426/2025
Filing Date
23-06-2025
Registration No
426/2025
Registration Date
23-06-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
495
Police Station
KUTIYANA POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KARA URFE RUDA DEVRAJBHAI KODIYATAR Advocate - S P LAKHALANI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 04-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 06-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 09-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(f) for alleged illegal possession of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panch witnesses (independent observers) and investigating officer did not provide credible corroborating evidence, and critical details regarding the seizure location, vehicle number, and timing were not recorded in the FIR or investigation documents. The court ruled that in the absence of independent, trustworthy witness testimony supporting the prosecution's narrative, the accused deserved the benefit of doubt under criminal law principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(f) for alleged illegal possession of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the panch witnesses (independent observers) and investigating officer did not provide credible corroborating evidence, and critical details regarding the seizure location, vehicle number, and timing were not recorded in the FIR or investigation documents. The court ruled that in the absence of independent, trustworthy witness testimony supporting the prosecution's narrative, the accused deserved the benefit of doubt under criminal law principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts