THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs VINESHBHAI SUBHASHBHAI PAWAR Advocate - U T MAHLA — 408/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85(1),. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 06th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNV110005122025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
408/2025
Filing Date
02-07-2025
Registration No
408/2025
Registration Date
02-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGHAI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11219007250138
Police Station
WAGHAI POLICE STATION - DANGS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
VINESHBHAI SUBHASHBHAI PAWAR Advocate - U T MAHLA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 03-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 18-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 20-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted the accused Vinneshbhai Sushabhbhai Pavar of charges under IPC Sections 66(1)(b) and 65(1) (Prohibition of Alcohol Act) due to insufficient evidence, as the prosecution failed to establish the case with proper medical and procedural compliance. The court found that critical evidence regarding blood sample examination and proper chain of custody was not adequately established, and the defence's arguments regarding procedural irregularities could not be conclusively refuted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted the accused Vinneshbhai Sushabhbhai Pavar of charges under IPC Sections 66(1)(b) and 65(1) (Prohibition of Alcohol Act) due to insufficient evidence, as the prosecution failed to establish the case with proper medical and procedural compliance. The court found that critical evidence regarding blood sample examination and proper chain of custody was not adequately established, and the defence's arguments regarding procedural irregularities could not be conclusively refuted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts