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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 66(1)B,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Chandulal Maganbhai Baria

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

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEVGADHBARIA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case