THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MANISHABEN HASMUKHBHAI JESINGBHAI VASAVA — 623/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030009572026

Filing Number

623/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

623/2026

Registration Date

30-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199021251425

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR G.I.D.C. POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANISHABEN HASMUKHBHAI JESINGBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 623/2026 Summary Court Decision: The court sentenced the respondent Manishaben Hasmukhbhai Jesingbhai Vasava under IPC Section 264 (adulteration) to imprisonment for 2 days and a fine of ₹200 (or additional 1 day imprisonment if fine unpaid). The court considered mitigating circumstances including the respondent's poor economic status, family dependence, and lack of prior criminal record, justifying the lenient sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 623/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 623/2026 Summary Court Decision: The court sentenced the respondent Manishaben Hasmukhbhai Jesingbhai Vasava under IPC Section 264 (adulteration) to imprisonment for 2 days and a fine of ₹200 (or additional 1 day imprisonment if fine unpaid). The court considered mitigating circumstances including the respondent's poor economic status, family dependence, and lack of prior criminal record, justifying the lenient sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case