Government of Gujarat vs KETAN URFE KALU RAMANBHAI MAKVANA Advocate - J M VAGHELA — 900/2025
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116B,98(2),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSN170012122025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
900/2025
Filing Date
16-10-2025
Registration No
900/2025
Registration Date
16-10-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-THANGADH
Judge
1-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
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KETAN URFE KALU RAMANBHAI MAKVANA Advocate - J M VAGHELA
SAVANBHAI VINUBHAI VANAPARA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 20-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 17-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 07-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 27-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thangadh acquitted both accused under the Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that foreign liquor seized from their possession was genuine. The court held that witness testimony from the panchas (independent witnesses) did not corroborate the seizure, no FSL report was produced to authenticate the bottles, and no company representative verified the product's authenticity—therefore the presumption under Section 116(B) could not be invoked. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thangadh acquitted both accused under the Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that foreign liquor seized from their possession was genuine. The court held that witness testimony from the panchas (independent witnesses) did not corroborate the seizure, no FSL report was produced to authenticate the bottles, and no company representative verified the product's authenticity—therefore the presumption under Section 116(B) could not be invoked. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts