THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MAHESHBHAI JUNJABHAI DEKANI Advocate - V V HATVANI — 1134/2024

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 22nd April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJRJ140014992024

Case disposed

Filing Number

1134/2024

Filing Date

10-09-2024

Registration No

1134/2024

Registration Date

10-09-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, JASDAN

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

22nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11213021240392

Police Station

JASDAN POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

MAHESHBHAI JUNJABHAI DEKANI Advocate - V V HATVANI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

22-04-2026

Disposed

21-04-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

23-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

11-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

27-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

22-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused, Maheshbhai Zunzhabhai Dekani, of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) and Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 for drunk driving. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite circumstantial evidence, as critical procedural safeguards—including breath analyzer tests, independent witness statements, and proper medical examination documentation—were absent from the investigation record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused, Maheshbhai Zunzhabhai Dekani, of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) and Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 for drunk driving. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite circumstantial evidence, as critical procedural safeguards—including breath analyzer tests, independent witness statements, and proper medical examination documentation—were absent from the investigation record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, JASDAN All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case