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
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
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.
Disposed
PLEA
SUMMONS - NOTICE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts