Government of Gujarat vs MUKESHBHAI SABURBHAI KATARA — 1097/2026

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: GJDH040011592026

Filing Number

1097/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

1097/2026

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

11821035251470

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.MUKESHBHAI SABURBHAI KATARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary The court discharged the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to provide mandatory evidence required by law. Although the accused was allegedly found consuming alcohol without a permit in a public place, no blood test report was submitted to establish the alcohol content, and the sample blood was not forwarded to the forensic lab within the mandatory seven-day period as required under the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959. Without this critical scientific evidence, the court held that the prosecution could not prove the offense 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. 1097/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court discharged the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to provide mandatory evidence required by law. Although the accused was allegedly found consuming alcohol without a permit in a public place, no blood test report was submitted to establish the alcohol content, and the sample blood was not forwarded to the forensic lab within the mandatory seven-day period as required under the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959. Without this critical scientific evidence, the court held that the prosecution could not prove 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