Government of Gujarat vs KAMLESHBHAI JAGMALBHAI KANKODIYA — 55/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK030000662026

e-Filing Number

02-01-2026

Filing Number

55/2026

Filing Date

12-Jan-2026

Registration No

55/2026

Registration Date

12-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, VADGAM

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11195055250590

Police Station

VADGAM POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAMLESHBHAI JAGMALBHAI KANKODIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 55/2026 Summary: The court found Kamleshbhai Jagmalbhai Kankodiya guilty under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100, with default imprisonment of three days. The court considered the respondent's poor background, confession, and rehabilitation potential as mitigating factors while imposing the minimum prescribed sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 12-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 30-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 12-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 55/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 55/2026 Summary: The court found Kamleshbhai Jagmalbhai Kankodiya guilty under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100, with default imprisonment of three days. The court considered the respondent's poor background, confession, and rehabilitation potential as mitigating factors while imposing the minimum prescribed 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