THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAGHUBHA TAPUBHA SARVAIYA Advocate - R A SOJITRA — 529/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ080006692025
Filing Number
529/2025
Filing Date
19-12-2025
Registration No
529/2025
Registration Date
19-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213020250541
Police Station
JAMKANDORANA POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
RAGHUBHA TAPUBHA SARVAIYA Advocate - R A SOJITRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 27-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 26-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 13-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Jamkandorna acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient corroborating evidence and procedural defects in the investigation. The court found that prosecution witnesses (panchas/village elders) failed to support the case, the investigation lacked independent witness documentation, and the accused's custody was based on contaminated procedures, rendering the conviction unjustifiable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Jamkandorna acquitted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a)(a) due to insufficient corroborating evidence and procedural defects in the investigation. The court found that prosecution witnesses (panchas/village elders) failed to support the case, the investigation lacked independent witness documentation, and the accused's custody was based on contaminated procedures, rendering the conviction unjustifiable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts