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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

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.

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

09-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case