Government of Gujarat vs MANHARBHAI LAXMANBHAI CHAUHAN — 1094/2026

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: GJDH040011562026

Filing Number

1094/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

1094/2026

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

11821035251365

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.MANHARBHAI LAXMANBHAI CHAUHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The court discharged the accused under the Bombay Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for consuming liquor without a permit in a public place. The court found that critical procedural requirements were not satisfied: no blood test report was submitted despite being mandatory under the Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules 1959, and the blood sample was not forwarded to the FSL within the mandatory seven-day period. Additionally, no evidence of public nuisance or disorderly conduct was established on record, making the prosecution's case insufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 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. 1094/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court discharged the accused under the Bombay Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for consuming liquor without a permit in a public place. The court found that critical procedural requirements were not satisfied: no blood test report was submitted despite being mandatory under the Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules 1959, and the blood sample was not forwarded to the FSL within the mandatory seven-day period. Additionally, no evidence of public nuisance or disorderly conduct was established on record, making the prosecution's case insufficient to prove the charge 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