Government of Gujarat vs ranjankumar kuldipbhai sarma Advocate - CRPC- — 749/2021
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65 aa,81. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSR080007612021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
756/2021
Filing Date
11-01-2021
Registration No
749/2021
Registration Date
11-01-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF
FIR Details
FIR Number
11214031200025
Police Station
MAHUVA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ranjankumar kuldipbhai sarma Advocate - CRPC-
montikumar sunilbhai rajput
Adv. CRPC-299
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 23-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 09-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted both accused (Ranjankumar Kuldipbhai Sharma and Montikumar Sunilbhai Rajput) under Section 239 of the CrPC, finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges of possession of foreign liquor and an unregistered motorcycle (under Prohibition Act Sections 65AA and 81). The court held that witness testimony contradicted the FIR narrative, no independent witnesses confirmed the seizure, and the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the alleged contraband, making conviction impossible despite the seizure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted both accused (Ranjankumar Kuldipbhai Sharma and Montikumar Sunilbhai Rajput) under Section 239 of the CrPC, finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges of possession of foreign liquor and an unregistered motorcycle (under Prohibition Act Sections 65AA and 81). The court held that witness testimony contradicted the FIR narrative, no independent witnesses confirmed the seizure, and the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the alleged contraband, making conviction impossible despite the seizure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts