Government of Gujarat vs AJAYBHAI SATYNARAYAN TIVARI Advocate - CPRC-299 — 669/2021

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 15th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR080006802021

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

675/2021

Filing Date

09-01-2021

Registration No

669/2021

Registration Date

09-01-2021

Court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

15th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

FIR Details

FIR Number

753

Police Station

MAHUVA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

AJAYBHAI SATYNARAYAN TIVARI Advocate - CPRC-299

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

15-04-2026

Disposed

09-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

07-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

06-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

09-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

15-04-2026
ORDER

Summary The court discharged the accused, Ajayabhai Satyanarayan Tiwari, under Section 239 of the CrPC, finding insufficient evidence to prove the charge under Section 65-A of the Prohibition Act. The court held that witness testimony contradicted the seizure memo, no independent witnesses confirmed the seizure from the public place, and without technical expert evidence (FSL) or direct recovery from the accused, the prosecution failed to establish the link between the prohibited foreign liquor bottles and the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court discharged the accused, Ajayabhai Satyanarayan Tiwari, under Section 239 of the CrPC, finding insufficient evidence to prove the charge under Section 65-A of the Prohibition Act. The court held that witness testimony contradicted the seizure memo, no independent witnesses confirmed the seizure from the public place, and without technical expert evidence (FSL) or direct recovery from the accused, the prosecution failed to establish the link between the prohibited foreign liquor bottles and the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case