GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs AMARSINH NANABHAI MALIVAD Advocate - R G PATEL — 4484/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM020066972025
Filing Number
4484/2025
Filing Date
08-10-2025
Registration No
4484/2025
Registration Date
08-10-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT GODHRA
Judge
6-2ND ADDL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
Decision Date
13th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
649
Police Station
GODHRA TALUKA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
AMARSINH NANABHAI MALIVAD Advocate - R G PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 6-2ND ADDL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 04-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 4484/2025 Court: Second Additional Civil Judge (First Class), Godhra, Panchmahal, Gujarat Parties: Government of Gujarat (Petitioner) vs. Amarsinh Nanabhai Malivad, Advocate R.G. Patel (Respondents) Decision: The court acquitted the accused Amarsinh Nanabhai Malivad of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 69(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key prosecution witnesses did not adequately corroborate the charges, and critical procedural requirements were not satisfied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 4484/2025 Court: Second Additional Civil Judge (First Class), Godhra, Panchmahal, Gujarat Parties: Government of Gujarat (Petitioner) vs. Amarsinh Nanabhai Malivad, Advocate R.G. Patel (Respondents) Decision: The court acquitted the accused Amarsinh Nanabhai Malivad of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 69(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key prosecution witnesses did not adequately corroborate the charges, and critical procedural requirements were not satisfied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts