Government of Gujarat vs Niteshbhai Dineshbhai Ninama — 257/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDH030003582026

Filing Number

257/2026

Filing Date

28-Jan-2026

Registration No

257/2026

Registration Date

28-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEVGADHBARIA

Judge

2-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 16-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Niteshbhai Dineshbhai Ninama

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Court Summary The court held that offences under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (drunk driving) and Section 66(1)(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act (liquor consumption, first offence) are both non-cognizable offences requiring magistrate permission before police investigation under Section 174(2) of BNSS, 2023. Since no such permission was obtained, the court declined to take cognizance and dropped all proceedings against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 28-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 257/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Summary The court held that offences under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (drunk driving) and Section 66(1)(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act (liquor consumption, first offence) are both non-cognizable offences requiring magistrate permission before police investigation under Section 174(2) of BNSS, 2023. Since no such permission was obtained, the court declined to take cognizance and dropped all proceedings against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case