Government of Gujarat vs KANTIBHAI PARVATBHAI VADI — 1030/2026

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDH040010872026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1030/2026

Filing Date

12-02-2026

Registration No

1030/2026

Registration Date

12-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, LIMKHEDA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 85,66(1)(B),

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

KANTIBHAI PARVATBHAI VADI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &

14-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

12-02-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER
14-03-2026
ORDER

SUMMARY: The court discharged the accused under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for alleged public consumption of alcohol without a permit. The court found that the prosecution failed to submit mandatory blood test reports as required under the Bombay Prohibition Medical Examination and Blood Test Rules, 1959, and did not establish the statutory alcohol content threshold in the accused's blood within the required seven-day period. Additionally, the court noted the absence of evidence regarding disorderly conduct or public disturbance required to constitute the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The court discharged the accused under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for alleged public consumption of alcohol without a permit. The court found that the prosecution failed to submit mandatory blood test reports as required under the Bombay Prohibition Medical Examination and Blood Test Rules, 1959, and did not establish the statutory alcohol content threshold in the accused's blood within the required seven-day period. Additionally, the court noted the absence of evidence regarding disorderly conduct or public disturbance required to constitute the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, LIMKHEDA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case