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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65E

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.

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

11-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case