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

Case disposed

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

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 185,3,181,
GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 66(1)B

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

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

28-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, GARUDESHWAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case