Government of Gujarat vs SARTANBHAI BHIKHABHAI MAVI — 1093/2026

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: GJDH040011552026

Filing Number

1093/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

1093/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, LIMKHEDA

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge &

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11821035251360

Police Station

LIMKHEDA POLICE STATION - DAHOD DISTRICT

Year

2025

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.SARTANBHAI BHIKHABHAI MAVI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court discharged the accused from charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b) for consuming liquor without a permit. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide mandatory evidence, specifically: (1) no blood test report was submitted to establish alcohol content above the legal limit of 0.05%, and (2) no proof that the blood sample reached the FSL within the mandatory 7-day period as required by the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959. Without this essential forensic evidence, the court concluded the charge could not be substantiated and ordered the accused's discharge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge &

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge &

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1093/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court discharged the accused from charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b) for consuming liquor without a permit. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide mandatory evidence, specifically: (1) no blood test report was submitted to establish alcohol content above the legal limit of 0.05%, and (2) no proof that the blood sample reached the FSL within the mandatory 7-day period as required by the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959. Without this essential forensic evidence, the court concluded the charge could not be substantiated and ordered the accused's discharge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case