Government of Gujarat vs KANA HAJABHAI MUCHHAR Advocate - D K SONDARVA — 431/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPB040005072025

Case disposed

Filing Number

431/2025

Filing Date

23-06-2025

Registration No

431/2025

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

145

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)

KANA HAJABHAI MUCHHAR Advocate - D K SONDARVA

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 Gujarat High Court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for illegal possession of country-made liquor, finding insufficient evidence and lack of credible independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as the witnesses presented lacked impartiality and the circumstantial evidence was weak. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Gujarat High Court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for illegal possession of country-made liquor, finding insufficient evidence and lack of credible independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as the witnesses presented lacked impartiality and the circumstantial evidence was weak. 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