GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs BHAVANSINH NANSINH CHAUHAN Advocate - H F BARIA — 1337/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM050017792025
Filing Number
1337/2025
Filing Date
10-11-2025
Registration No
1337/2025
Registration Date
10-11-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA
Judge
1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
FIR Details
FIR Number
328
Police Station
SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BHAVANSINH NANSINH CHAUHAN Advocate - H F BARIA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 07-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 1337/2025 Court Decision: The accused, Bhavansinh Nansinh Chauhan, was acquitted of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Critical evidentiary gaps included: the panch witnesses turned hostile and denied that liquor was seized in their presence; no documentary evidence proved ownership of the raided premises; no forensic report confirmed the seized bottles were genuine Indian Made Foreign Liquor; and no independent witnesses from the locality were produced despite the raid occurring in a residential area. The court concluded these deficiencies rendered conviction impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC No. 1337/2025 Court Decision: The accused, Bhavansinh Nansinh Chauhan, was acquitted of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Critical evidentiary gaps included: the panch witnesses turned hostile and denied that liquor was seized in their presence; no documentary evidence proved ownership of the raided premises; no forensic report confirmed the seized bottles were genuine Indian Made Foreign Liquor; and no independent witnesses from the locality were produced despite the raid occurring in a residential area. The court concluded these deficiencies rendered conviction impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts