Government of Gujarat vs CHHATRASANGBHAI BABARBHAI RATHOD — 181/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH070001992026

Filing Number

181/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

181/2026

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

11199003250487

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.CHHATRASANGBHAI BABARBHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    The court acquitted defendant Chhatrasangbhai Babarbhai Rathod of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Sections 66(1)(b) and 85, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the investigating officer was not a liquor expert, no Form-C (laboratory report) was submitted, and no independent witness corroborated the intoxication allegation, making the prosecution unable to conclusively establish the offense elements. 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. 09-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 181/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted defendant Chhatrasangbhai Babarbhai Rathod of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act Sections 66(1)(b) and 85, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the investigating officer was not a liquor expert, no Form-C (laboratory report) was submitted, and no independent witness corroborated the intoxication allegation, making the prosecution unable to conclusively establish the offense elements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case