Government of Gujarat vs VIJAYBHAI AMRABHAI MAVI — 240/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85,66(1)(B),. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDH040002652026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
240/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Registration No
240/2026
Registration Date
20-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, LIMKHEDA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF
FIR Details
FIR Number
11821035250320
Police Station
LIMKHEDA POLICE STATION - DAHOD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
VIJAYBHAI AMRABHAI MAVI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
Disposed
WARRANT OF ARREST
WARRANT OF ARREST
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST | |
| 16-02-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST | |
| 20-01-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court discharged the accused under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) due to lack of sufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to provide a mandatory medical blood test report as required by The Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, which mandates that blood samples be forwarded to the Testing Officer within seven days of collection. Additionally, the court found no evidence of public disturbance or disorderly conduct as required elements of the offense, making the prima facie case unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court discharged the accused under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) due to lack of sufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to provide a mandatory medical blood test report as required by The Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, which mandates that blood samples be forwarded to the Testing Officer within seven days of collection. Additionally, the court found no evidence of public disturbance or disorderly conduct as required elements of the offense, making the prima facie case unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts