Government of Gujarat vs Sohilbhai Hanifbhai Solanki Advocate - D M VAGHELA — 1614/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E,81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ050020962025
Filing Number
1614/2025
Filing Date
21-Jul-2025
Registration No
1614/2025
Registration Date
21-Jul-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JETPUR
Judge
1-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213096250128
Police Station
JETPUR UDHYOG NAGAR POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sohilbhai Hanifbhai Solanki Advocate - D M VAGHELA
-
2.Poojaben Lalitbhai Vegada
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
The Jetpur Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted both accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Sections 65(e) and 81 for allegedly selling illicit liquor to a minor, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that the panchnama (seizure record) lacked independent corroboration, key witnesses were hostile, and critical evidence regarding possession and seizure was inadequately established, thereby granting the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Feb-2026
Further Statement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1614/2025
The Jetpur Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted both accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Sections 65(e) and 81 for allegedly selling illicit liquor to a minor, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that the panchnama (seizure record) lacked independent corroboration, key witnesses were hostile, and critical evidence regarding possession and seizure was inadequately established, thereby granting the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts