Government of Gujarat vs Hareshbhai Dineshbhai Tadvi Advocate - S A THAKOR — 362/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185,3,181,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 28th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR060003892026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
362/2026
Filing Date
10-03-2026
Registration No
362/2026
Registration Date
10-03-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, GARUDESHWAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11823014250377
Police Station
KEVADIYA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Hareshbhai Dineshbhai Tadvi Advocate - S A THAKOR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
WARRANT OF ARREST
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 02-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 24-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST | |
| 10-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Garudeshwar (Narmada) acquitted the accused Hareshbhai Dineshbhai Tadvi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 185, 3, 181. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused was driving while intoxicated, as the independent witnesses (panchas) did not corroborate the police narrative, blood samples were not properly submitted to the forensic lab as required by the 1959 Medical Examination Rules, and critical procedural safeguards under the Motor Vehicles Act Section 209 were not followed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Garudeshwar (Narmada) acquitted the accused Hareshbhai Dineshbhai Tadvi of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 185, 3, 181. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused was driving while intoxicated, as the independent witnesses (panchas) did not corroborate the police narrative, blood samples were not properly submitted to the forensic lab as required by the 1959 Medical Examination Rules, and critical procedural safeguards under the Motor Vehicles Act Section 209 were not followed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts