Government of Gujarat vs JAYSING RAJARAM NISHAD — 8988/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65E. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC RLY - CRIMINAL CASE - RAILWAY
CNR: GJSR160091062025
Filing Number
8991/2025
Filing Date
04-Dec-2025
Registration No
8988/2025
Registration Date
04-Dec-2025
Court
RAILWAY COURT, Surat
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
0480
Police Station
VALSAD TOWN RLY. POLICE STATION - VALSAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
-
1.JAYSING RAJARAM NISHAD
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Judegement
Summary The Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Surat acquitted the accused Jaysingh Rajaaram Nishad of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing foreign liquor on a train. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence lacked independent witness corroboration, proper investigation procedures were not followed, and the seized liquor's authenticity could not be sufficiently proven through the available evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)
-
09-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)
-
23-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)
-
09-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)
-
12-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)
-
29-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)
-
19-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 8988/2025
Summary The Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Surat acquitted the accused Jaysingh Rajaaram Nishad of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing foreign liquor on a train. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence lacked independent witness corroboration, proper investigation procedures were not followed, and the seized liquor's authenticity could not be sufficiently proven through the available evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts