Government of Gujarat vs ATINBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL — 170/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH070001882026
Filing Number
170/2026
Filing Date
24-Feb-2026
Registration No
170/2026
Registration Date
24-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, AMOD
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199003240784
Police Station
AMOD POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.ATINBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: CC 170/2026 Court Decision: The accused, Atinbhai Narsinhbhai Patel, was acquitted of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 66(1)(b) and 85. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in an intoxicated state, as the investigating officer admitted he was not qualified to conduct alcohol testing and no Form "C" (medical certificate) was prepared as required by the Bombay Prohibition Rules 1959. Key Reasoning: Despite police testimony that the accused appeared intoxicated during a November 2024 search, the absence of proper medical testing procedures, lack of scientific evidence, and procedural non-compliance with mandatory documentation standards rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to establish the offense conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 170/2026
Case Summary: CC 170/2026 Court Decision: The accused, Atinbhai Narsinhbhai Patel, was acquitted of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 66(1)(b) and 85. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in an intoxicated state, as the investigating officer admitted he was not qualified to conduct alcohol testing and no Form "C" (medical certificate) was prepared as required by the Bombay Prohibition Rules 1959. Key Reasoning: Despite police testimony that the accused appeared intoxicated during a November 2024 search, the absence of proper medical testing procedures, lack of scientific evidence, and procedural non-compliance with mandatory documentation standards rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to establish the offense conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts