Government of Gujarat vs NAVAGHANBHAI NAGJIBHAI GELADIYA Advocate - H B DAVE — 617/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AE,116B,81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSN040008692025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
617/2025
Filing Date
22-07-2025
Registration No
617/2025
Registration Date
22-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SAYLA
Judge
28-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
NAVAGHANBHAI NAGJIBHAI GELADIYA Advocate - H B DAVE
MAHIPALNATH JESALNATH BLOCH
Adv. null
SOHILBHAI RAMJANBHAI MAMANI
Adv. null
SURAJBHAI DHIRUBHAI GELADIYA
Adv. null
KRUSNKUMARSINH SHIVARAJBHAI ZALA
Adv. null
Hearing History
Judge: 28-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 26-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 29-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 29-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 27-11-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Judgment Summary Case No. C.C. 617/2025 | Sayla First Class Magistrate Court Decision: The court acquitted all five accused persons under the Prohibition Act for lack of sufficient evidence. While liquor bottles and vehicles were allegedly seized from their possession, the court found critical procedural and evidentiary gaps—including inadequate panchnama (witness documentation), no independent witness corroboration, and failure to establish the accused's direct possession of the contraband goods from the sealed office space where they were allegedly found. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Judgment Summary Case No. C.C. 617/2025 | Sayla First Class Magistrate Court Decision: The court acquitted all five accused persons under the Prohibition Act for lack of sufficient evidence. While liquor bottles and vehicles were allegedly seized from their possession, the court found critical procedural and evidentiary gaps—including inadequate panchnama (witness documentation), no independent witness corroboration, and failure to establish the accused's direct possession of the contraband goods from the sealed office space where they were allegedly found. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts