THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs JAYDIPSINH NARUBHA JADEJA Advocate - P R KOYANI — 522/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ080006622025
Filing Number
522/2025
Filing Date
16-Dec-2025
Registration No
522/2025
Registration Date
16-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
02-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213020250472
Police Station
JAMKANDORANA POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.JAYDIPSINH NARUBHA JADEJA Advocate - P R KOYANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The court acquitted the accused of illegal liquor manufacturing charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(a) due to insufficient evidence and procedural defects in the investigation. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as witnesses (panchas) did not support the prosecution's narrative, and crucial evidence regarding seized materials lacked proper documentation and chain of custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 522/2025
Summary The court acquitted the accused of illegal liquor manufacturing charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(a) due to insufficient evidence and procedural defects in the investigation. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as witnesses (panchas) did not support the prosecution's narrative, and crucial evidence regarding seized materials lacked proper documentation and chain of custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts