Government of Gujarat vs DIVYESHBHAI NATVARBHAI PARMAR — 110/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH070001202026

Filing Number

110/2026

Filing Date

06-Feb-2026

Registration No

110/2026

Registration Date

06-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, AMOD

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199003250569

Police Station

AMOD POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DIVYESHBHAI NATVARBHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Summary of Case CC NO. 110/2026 The court acquitted defendant Divyeshbhai Natvarbhai Parmar of charges under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)B, finding insufficient evidence of drunk driving. The prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, as critical procedural requirements—including breath analyzer testing and proper documentation under relevant rules—were not followed by investigating officers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 110/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case CC NO. 110/2026 The court acquitted defendant Divyeshbhai Natvarbhai Parmar of charges under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)B, finding insufficient evidence of drunk driving. The prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, as critical procedural requirements—including breath analyzer testing and proper documentation under relevant rules—were not followed by investigating officers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case