GOVERNMETN OF GUJARAT vs RAJENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL VYAS Advocate - B S JALERA — 198/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 319(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPT040003112025
Filing Number
198/2025
Filing Date
17-05-2025
Registration No
198/2025
Registration Date
17-05-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SAMI
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11217029250114
Police Station
SAMI POLICE STATION - PATAN DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMETN OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
RAJENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL VYAS Advocate - B S JALERA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 20-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 16-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused, Rajendrakumar Maftlal Vyas, of charges under IPC Section 319(2) and the Gujarat Medical Practitioner Act 1963 Section 30, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in evidence, including lack of independent witness corroboration, absence of seized medical equipment documentation, and no proof that the accused's unlicensed medical practice caused actual harm to patients. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused, Rajendrakumar Maftlal Vyas, of charges under IPC Section 319(2) and the Gujarat Medical Practitioner Act 1963 Section 30, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical gaps in evidence, including lack of independent witness corroboration, absence of seized medical equipment documentation, and no proof that the accused's unlicensed medical practice caused actual harm to patients. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts