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
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
8991/2025
Filing Date
04-12-2025
Registration No
8988/2025
Registration Date
04-12-2025
Court
RAILWAY COURT, Surat
Judge
1-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (RAILWAYS)
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
0480
Police Station
VALSAD TOWN RLY. POLICE STATION - VALSAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
JAYSING RAJARAM NISHAD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (RAILWAYS)
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 23-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 09-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 12-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts