Government of Gujarat vs VIKRAMSINH JASWANTSINH DAYAMA — 173/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH070001912026

Filing Number

173/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

173/2026

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

11199003240648

Police Station

AMOD POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIKRAMSINH JASWANTSINH DAYAMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: CC 173/2026 The court acquitted defendant Vikramsinh Jaswantsinh Dayama of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b) and 85, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The investigating officer admitted he was not an expert in alcohol testing and failed to prepare the mandatory Form-C report required under the Bombay Prohibition Rules 1959, critically undermining the evidence of intoxication. Without independent corroborating evidence and proper documentary compliance, the court ruled the charge of public intoxication unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 173/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 173/2026 The court acquitted defendant Vikramsinh Jaswantsinh Dayama of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b) and 85, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The investigating officer admitted he was not an expert in alcohol testing and failed to prepare the mandatory Form-C report required under the Bombay Prohibition Rules 1959, critically undermining the evidence of intoxication. Without independent corroborating evidence and proper documentary compliance, the court ruled the charge of public intoxication unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case