Government of Gujarat vs Dharanant Chanabhai Suva Advocate - D K SONDARVA — 756/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB040008872025
Filing Number
756/2025
Filing Date
14-11-2025
Registration No
756/2025
Registration Date
14-11-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
334
Police Station
KUTIYANA POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Dharanant Chanabhai Suva Advocate - D K SONDARVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Disposed
WARRANT OF ARREST
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST |
| 11-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 05-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 06-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Kutiana Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a) for alleged possession of foreign liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key witnesses did not provide independent corroboration, the panchnama (seizure memo) lacked proper authentication from neutral witnesses, and critical procedural requirements were not satisfied. The court noted that in the absence of reliable and credible evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, resulting in acquittal on all charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Kutiana Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a) for alleged possession of foreign liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key witnesses did not provide independent corroboration, the panchnama (seizure memo) lacked proper authentication from neutral witnesses, and critical procedural requirements were not satisfied. The court noted that in the absence of reliable and credible evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, resulting in acquittal on all charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts