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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 319(2)
GUJARAT MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT, 1963 Section 30

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

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

23-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SAMI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case