Government of Gujarat vs RASIKBHAI JENTIBHAI VASAVA — 180/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH070001982026
Filing Number
180/2026
Filing Date
24-Feb-2026
Registration No
180/2026
Registration Date
24-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 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199003250083
Police Station
AMOD POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RASIKBHAI JENTIBHAI VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Apr-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: CC No. 180/2026 Court Decision: The accused Rasikbhai Jentibhai Vasava was acquitted of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Sections 66(1)(b) and 85. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused consumed alcohol, primarily due to absence of proper scientific evidence and expert testimony on blood testing procedures. Key Reasoning: The investigating officer admitted he was not a qualified expert in alcohol testing and had not prepared Form "C" (required testing documentation per Bombay Prohibition Rules 1959). Without independent expert evidence and proper procedural compliance, the court held the circumstantial evidence of intoxication insufficient to establish the offense conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Apr-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Apr-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 180/2026
Case Summary: CC No. 180/2026 Court Decision: The accused Rasikbhai Jentibhai Vasava was acquitted of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Sections 66(1)(b) and 85. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused consumed alcohol, primarily due to absence of proper scientific evidence and expert testimony on blood testing procedures. Key Reasoning: The investigating officer admitted he was not a qualified expert in alcohol testing and had not prepared Form "C" (required testing documentation per Bombay Prohibition Rules 1959). Without independent expert evidence and proper procedural compliance, the court held the circumstantial evidence of intoxication insufficient to establish the offense conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts