Government of Gujarat vs HAMIRBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI SHIHORA Advocate - U I MAKWANA — 42/2024

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSN080001052024

Filing Number

42/2024

Filing Date

08-Jan-2024

Registration No

42/2024

Registration Date

08-Jan-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHRANGADHRA

Judge

17-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

597

Police Station

DHRANGADHRA TALUKA POLICE STATION - SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HAMIRBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI SHIHORA Advocate - U I MAKWANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: Case 42/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused Hamirbhai Dharamshibhai Shihora of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and lacked credible corroboration; no independent witnesses supported the allegations of illegal liquor manufacturing, and critical procedural evidence was absent or deficient. Key Reasoning: The court held that while police witnesses testified about the alleged brewing operation, the panch (independent witnesses) did not substantiate the prosecution's case, and the seized samples lacked proper documentation linking them to the accused. The court emphasized that the prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not discharged here, warranting the accused's acquittal and discharge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  8. 29-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  9. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  10. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  11. 29-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  12. 18-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  13. 26-Aug-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  14. 28-Jul-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  15. 12-May-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  16. 24-Mar-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  17. 30-Dec-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  18. 07-Nov-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  19. 04-Sep-2024

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  20. 24-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  21. 30-May-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  22. 08-Apr-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  23. 13-Feb-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 08-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 42/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Case 42/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused Hamirbhai Dharamshibhai Shihora of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and lacked credible corroboration; no independent witnesses supported the allegations of illegal liquor manufacturing, and critical procedural evidence was absent or deficient. Key Reasoning: The court held that while police witnesses testified about the alleged brewing operation, the panch (independent witnesses) did not substantiate the prosecution's case, and the seized samples lacked proper documentation linking them to the accused. The court emphasized that the prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not discharged here, warranting the accused's acquittal and discharge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case