THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAMESHBHAI KALABHAI PARMAR — 168/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK210001912026

Filing Number

168/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

168/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Court

Taluka Court, Lakhni

Judge

1-Principal 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

11996001250626

Police Station

AGTHALA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA 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.RAMESHBHAI KALABHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted Rameshbhai Kalabhai Parmar under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for a common offense. Considering the accused's impoverished background, first-time offense, remorse, and status as the sole family earner, the court imposed lenient sentencing: a fine of Rs. 100 instead of the standard minimum, with 2 days simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid, and directed release of seized materials as per law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 168/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted Rameshbhai Kalabhai Parmar under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for a common offense. Considering the accused's impoverished background, first-time offense, remorse, and status as the sole family earner, the court imposed lenient sentencing: a fine of Rs. 100 instead of the standard minimum, with 2 days simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid, and directed release of seized materials as per law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case