Government of Gujarat vs HARADAS RAJASIBHAI GODHANIYA Advocate - P G BHARADIA — 429/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB040005052025
Filing Number
429/2025
Filing Date
23-06-2025
Registration No
429/2025
Registration Date
23-06-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
48
Police Station
KUTIYANA POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
HARADAS RAJASIBHAI GODHANIYA Advocate - P G BHARADIA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 10-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 04-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 06-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a) for illegal possession of alcohol. The judgment found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient independent witnesses, lack of proper documentation of the seized materials, and deficiencies in the investigation procedure. The court emphasized that without credible corroborating evidence from neutral parties, the testimonies of investigating officers alone could not establish guilt conclusively. 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(a) for illegal possession of alcohol. The judgment found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient independent witnesses, lack of proper documentation of the seized materials, and deficiencies in the investigation procedure. The court emphasized that without credible corroborating evidence from neutral parties, the testimonies of investigating officers alone could not establish guilt conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts