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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

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.

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

12-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case