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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

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.

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

02-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case