GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs SAMATSINH KALUBHAI PAGI Advocate - R U PAGI — 1201/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 08th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM050016142025
Filing Number
1201/2025
Filing Date
16-Oct-2025
Registration No
1201/2025
Registration Date
16-Oct-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA
Judge
1-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
0462
Police Station
SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SAMATSINH KALUBHAI PAGI Advocate - R U PAGI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: CC No. 1201/2025 The court acquitted Samantsinh Kalubhai Pagi of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove its case due to critical evidentiary gaps: panch witnesses turned hostile and denied IMFL seizure, no documentary proof of property ownership was produced, no forensic report confirmed the seized liquor's authenticity, and no independent witnesses from the locality testified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
Disposed
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
02-May-2026
Final Arguments
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
17-Apr-2026
Final Arguments
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
01-Apr-2026
Further Statement
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
13-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
30-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
24-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
27-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1201/2025
Case Summary: CC No. 1201/2025 The court acquitted Samantsinh Kalubhai Pagi of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove its case due to critical evidentiary gaps: panch witnesses turned hostile and denied IMFL seizure, no documentary proof of property ownership was produced, no forensic report confirmed the seized liquor's authenticity, and no independent witnesses from the locality testified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts