Government of Gujarat vs Sanjaybhai Naranbhai Tadvi Advocate - S A THAKOR — 217/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185,3,181. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR060002322026
Filing Number
217/2026
Filing Date
19-Feb-2026
Registration No
217/2026
Registration Date
19-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, GARUDESHWAR
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
23-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11823014250282
Police Station
KEVADIYA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sanjaybhai Naranbhai Tadvi Advocate - S A THAKOR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: CC NO-217/2026 The court acquitted the accused Sanjaybhai Naranbhai Tadvi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(B) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 185, 3, and 181, giving him the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient independent corroborating evidence—specifically, the blood sample examination report from the forensic laboratory and proper documentation under the 1959 Medical Examination Rules—to conclusively prove the accused was driving under the influence of alcohol. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Apr-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Apr-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 217/2026
Case Summary: CC NO-217/2026 The court acquitted the accused Sanjaybhai Naranbhai Tadvi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(B) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 185, 3, and 181, giving him the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient independent corroborating evidence—specifically, the blood sample examination report from the forensic laboratory and proper documentation under the 1959 Medical Examination Rules—to conclusively prove the accused was driving under the influence of alcohol. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts