Government of Gujarat vs Chandulal Maganbhai Baria — 4092/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDH030047712025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4092/2025
Filing Date
28-11-2025
Registration No
4092/2025
Registration Date
28-11-2025
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
11821050250924
Police Station
SAGTALA POLICE STATION - DAHOD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Chandulal Maganbhai Baria
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Summary The court dropped the criminal proceedings against the accused charged under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for liquor consumption. The court held that the 2017 Amendment deleted the cognizable classification of such offences, making them non-cognizable with maximum punishment under 3 years; since the investigating officer failed to obtain prior magistrate permission as mandatorily required under Section 155(2) CrPC/Section 174(2) BNSS before investigation, the investigation was illegal and the court could not take cognizance based on the vitiated report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dropped the criminal proceedings against the accused charged under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for liquor consumption. The court held that the 2017 Amendment deleted the cognizable classification of such offences, making them non-cognizable with maximum punishment under 3 years; since the investigating officer failed to obtain prior magistrate permission as mandatorily required under Section 155(2) CrPC/Section 174(2) BNSS before investigation, the investigation was illegal and the court could not take cognizance based on the vitiated report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts