GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs NILESHBHAI SARJANBHAI DAMOR — 81/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A),65(E),98(2),116(B),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPM080001232026

Filing Number

81/2026

Filing Date

03-Feb-2026

Registration No

81/2026

Registration Date

03-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, GHOGHMBA

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

701

Police Station

RAJGADH POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A),65(E),98(2),116(B),81

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NILESHBHAI SARJANBHAI DAMOR

  2. 2.VISHNUBHAI ARVINDBHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Case 81/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghoghamba acquitted both accused—Nileshbhai Sarjanbhai Damor and Vishnubhai Arvindbhai Rathod—under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for lack of sufficient evidence in the liquor prohibition case. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove that 1,000 bottles of Indian-made whiskey (valued at ₹2,80,500) and a Tata pickup truck (₹50,000) recovered from Bariya-Ghoghamba road belonged to the accused. The panch (witness) signatures on the seizure panchnama were accepted, but both witnesses turned hostile and did not support the recovery facts. The investigating officer's testimony also failed to establish concrete evidence linking the confiscated liquor to the accused. The court found the accused's alleged possession of the muddamal (contraband) doubtful due to insufficient corroborating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 04-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 10-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 10-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 26-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 13-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  14. 03-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 81/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case 81/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghoghamba acquitted both accused—Nileshbhai Sarjanbhai Damor and Vishnubhai Arvindbhai Rathod—under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for lack of sufficient evidence in the liquor prohibition case. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove that 1,000 bottles of Indian-made whiskey (valued at ₹2,80,500) and a Tata pickup truck (₹50,000) recovered from Bariya-Ghoghamba road belonged to the accused. The panch (witness) signatures on the seizure panchnama were accepted, but both witnesses turned hostile and did not support the recovery facts. The investigating officer's testimony also failed to establish concrete evidence linking the confiscated liquor to the accused. The court found the accused's alleged possession of the muddamal (contraband) doubtful due to insufficient corroborating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case