Government of Gujarat vs FENIL BHARATBHAI SAVANI(Absconding) — 1416/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th March 2026.
CC RLY - CRIMINAL CASE - RAILWAY
CNR: GJSR160014722025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1419/2025
Filing Date
09-05-2025
Registration No
1416/2025
Registration Date
09-05-2025
Court
RAILWAY COURT, Surat
Judge
1-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (RAILWAYS)
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
745
Police Station
SURAT RLY.POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
FENIL BHARATBHAI SAVANI(Absconding)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (RAILWAYS)
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 02-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 05-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 15-12-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Judgment Summary Case: JMFC(Railways) Surat, CC.1416/2025 Date of Judgment: 09-03-2026 The court acquitted the accused Fenil s/o Bharat Kumar Savani of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged possession of foreign liquor without valid pass/permit. The court found that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient and contradictory evidence, weak witness testimony, lack of independent corroboration, and improper seizure procedures—leading to the conclusion that the charge could not be established conclusively against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Judgment Summary Case: JMFC(Railways) Surat, CC.1416/2025 Date of Judgment: 09-03-2026 The court acquitted the accused Fenil s/o Bharat Kumar Savani of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged possession of foreign liquor without valid pass/permit. The court found that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient and contradictory evidence, weak witness testimony, lack of independent corroboration, and improper seizure procedures—leading to the conclusion that the charge could not be established conclusively against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts