Government of Gujarat vs Pushpakkumar Manharsinh Chauhan — 3499/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDH030040202025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

3499/2025

Filing Date

15-09-2025

Registration No

3499/2025

Registration Date

15-09-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEVGADHBARIA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

FIR Details

FIR Number

11821050251215

Police Station

SAGTALA POLICE STATION - DAHOD DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 66(1)B,
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 185,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Pushpakkumar Manharsinh Chauhan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

14-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

07-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

25-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

09-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

The court dropped the criminal proceedings against the accused for violations under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Motor Vehicles Act, holding that the investigation was illegal and void. The court found that the offences were non-cognizable (maximum punishment under 3 years), yet the investigating officer failed to obtain mandatory prior permission from the competent magistrate under Section 174(2) of BNSS before initiating investigation, violating a fundamental procedural safeguard. Consequently, the accused was discharged from bail bonds, and contraband items were ordered destroyed per legal guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court dropped the criminal proceedings against the accused for violations under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Motor Vehicles Act, holding that the investigation was illegal and void. The court found that the offences were non-cognizable (maximum punishment under 3 years), yet the investigating officer failed to obtain mandatory prior permission from the competent magistrate under Section 174(2) of BNSS before initiating investigation, violating a fundamental procedural safeguard. Consequently, the accused was discharged from bail bonds, and contraband items were ordered destroyed per legal guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEVGADHBARIA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case