Government of Gujarat vs Rajubhai Premvirsinh Patel — 703/2026

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: GJDH030008652026

Filing Number

703/2026

Filing Date

19-Feb-2026

Registration No

703/2026

Registration Date

19-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEVGADHBARIA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11821052260086

Police Station

PIPLOD POLICE STATION - DAHOD DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rajubhai Premvirsinh Patel

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court dropped criminal proceedings against the accused charged with liquor consumption under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The court held that the 2017 Amendment reclassified the offense as non-cognizable (maximum 6 months imprisonment), requiring prior magistrate permission before police investigation, which was not obtained. Since the investigation was conducted illegally without this mandatory permission, the court could not take cognizance of the vitiated report and discharged the accused from bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 703/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dropped criminal proceedings against the accused charged with liquor consumption under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The court held that the 2017 Amendment reclassified the offense as non-cognizable (maximum 6 months imprisonment), requiring prior magistrate permission before police investigation, which was not obtained. Since the investigation was conducted illegally without this mandatory permission, the court could not take cognizance of the vitiated report and discharged the accused from bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case