STATE OF GUJARAT vs LALAJI VALAJI THAKOR Advocate - S S RATHOD — 3100/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1),. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAR020043632025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

3100/2025

Filing Date

16-10-2025

Registration No

3100/2025

Registration Date

16-10-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT, MODASA

Judge

5-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

FIR Details

FIR Number

890

Police Station

MODASA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1),

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

LALAJI VALAJI THAKOR Advocate - S S RATHOD

Hearing History

Judge: 5-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

14-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

PLEA

02-03-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

09-02-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

19-01-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

Summary The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence of an accused convicted under the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Section 66(1)(b) and 85(1)). The court reduced the custodial sentence based on extenuating circumstances—including the accused's poverty, status as a first-time offender, and sole family earner—which the trial judge had failed to consider. The court held that courts possess discretion to impose reduced sentences when special circumstances warrant it, and accordingly reduced the punishment while imposing a fine of ₹100 in lieu of imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence of an accused convicted under the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Section 66(1)(b) and 85(1)). The court reduced the custodial sentence based on extenuating circumstances—including the accused's poverty, status as a first-time offender, and sole family earner—which the trial judge had failed to consider. The court held that courts possess discretion to impose reduced sentences when special circumstances warrant it, and accordingly reduced the punishment while imposing a fine of ₹100 in lieu of imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT, MODASA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case