Government of Gujarat vs NAVINBHAI RAMANBHAI GAMIT Advocate - A N PATEL — 90/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A,A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJTP070001002026
e-Filing Number
05-01-2026
Filing Number
90/2026
Filing Date
29-01-2026
Registration No
90/2026
Registration Date
02-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DOLVAN
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
1123
Police Station
DOLVAN POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
NAVINBHAI RAMANBHAI GAMIT Advocate - A N PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 12-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Navinbhai Ramanbhai Gamit, of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65 A-A. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical deficiencies: the panch (witness) records lacked proper authentication, the police witnesses could not credibly corroborate the seizure of 3 liters of illicit liquor, and the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the offense conclusively. The court emphasized that mere suspicion cannot substitute for concrete proof in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Navinbhai Ramanbhai Gamit, of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65 A-A. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical deficiencies: the panch (witness) records lacked proper authentication, the police witnesses could not credibly corroborate the seizure of 3 liters of illicit liquor, and the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the offense conclusively. The court emphasized that mere suspicion cannot substitute for concrete proof in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts