Government of Gujarat vs RAMESHBHAI HARJIBHAI NINAMA — 171/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85,66(1)(B). Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDH040001932026

Filing Number

171/2026

Filing Date

17-Jan-2026

Registration No

171/2026

Registration Date

17-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, LIMKHEDA

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge &

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 16-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85,66(1)(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMESHBHAI HARJIBHAI NINAMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary The court discharged the accused under the Bombay Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b) for consuming alcohol without a permit in public. The prosecution failed to produce mandatory medical evidence, specifically the blood test report required under the Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, which must reach the FSL within seven days of collection. Without this critical evidence establishing the required alcohol content threshold, the court found insufficient proof of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge &

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge &

  5. 10-Feb-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge &

  6. 17-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 17-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 171/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court discharged the accused under the Bombay Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b) for consuming alcohol without a permit in public. The prosecution failed to produce mandatory medical evidence, specifically the blood test report required under the Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, which must reach the FSL within seven days of collection. Without this critical evidence establishing the required alcohol content threshold, the court found insufficient proof of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case