Government of Gujarat vs ARJUN MANGALBHAI RATHOD — 175/2026

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: GJBH070001932026

Filing Number

175/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

175/2026

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

11199003250135

Police Station

AMOD POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2025

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.ARJUN MANGALBHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case 175/2026 Summary The court acquitted Arjun Mangalbhai Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 66(1)(b) and 85) for alleged public consumption of alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the investigating officer admitted he was not an expert in alcohol testing and did not follow proper protocol by submitting Form "C" to the testing laboratory within the required seven-day period under the Bombay Prohibition Rules 1959. 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. 175/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 175/2026 Summary The court acquitted Arjun Mangalbhai Rathod of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (Sections 66(1)(b) and 85) for alleged public consumption of alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the investigating officer admitted he was not an expert in alcohol testing and did not follow proper protocol by submitting Form "C" to the testing laboratory within the required seven-day period under the Bombay Prohibition Rules 1959. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case