GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT SULTANPUR vs VANRAJBHAI URFE VANO VALKUBHAI KARPADA Advocate - N K PARMAR — 3089/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ040045252025
Filing Number
3089/2025
Filing Date
09-12-2025
Registration No
3089/2025
Registration Date
09-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, GONDAL
Judge
3-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213097250199
Police Station
SULTANPUR POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT SULTANPUR
Respondent(s)
VANRAJBHAI URFE VANO VALKUBHAI KARPADA Advocate - N K PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 18-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 17-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Judgment In Criminal Case No. 3089/2025 at Gondal, Gujarat, the court acquitted defendant Vanraj (alias Vano) Valkubhai Karpada of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(F) for allegedly manufacturing and possessing illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing significant evidentiary gaps including lack of credible witness corroboration, absence of proper documentation of seized materials, and unexplained procedural irregularities in the raid. The defendant was acquitted and released on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Court Judgment In Criminal Case No. 3089/2025 at Gondal, Gujarat, the court acquitted defendant Vanraj (alias Vano) Valkubhai Karpada of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(F) for allegedly manufacturing and possessing illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing significant evidentiary gaps including lack of credible witness corroboration, absence of proper documentation of seized materials, and unexplained procedural irregularities in the raid. The defendant was acquitted and released on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts