Government of Gujarat vs Chiragbhai Bhagvanjibhai Undkar Advocate - J K VYAS — 3062/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJRJ050040142025

Filing Number

3062/2025

Filing Date

04-Dec-2025

Registration No

3062/2025

Registration Date

04-Dec-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

11213022250714

Police Station

JETPUR CITY POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chiragbhai Bhagvanjibhai Undkar Advocate - J K VYAS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Jetpur acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(a)(a) and 116(b), finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the accused's direct possession of English liquor bottles worth ₹10,000. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps, including lack of independent witness corroboration and absence of technical proof regarding the authenticity of the seized alcohol, thereby granting the accused the benefit of doubt under criminal law principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 19-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 04-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 04-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3062/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Jetpur acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(a)(a) and 116(b), finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the accused's direct possession of English liquor bottles worth ₹10,000. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps, including lack of independent witness corroboration and absence of technical proof regarding the authenticity of the seized alcohol, thereby granting the accused the benefit of doubt under criminal law principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case