THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRATAPJI BHEMAJI THAKOR — 170/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK210001932026

Filing Number

170/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

170/2026

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

11996001260017

Police Station

AGTHALA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRATAPJI BHEMAJI THAKOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC NO. 170/2026 The court convicted Pratapji Bhemaji Thakor under IPC Section 65A (Bombay Prohibition Act) for an offense related to prohibited substances. The court sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 and, in default of payment, to two days imprisonment, while ordering release of seized materials as per law. The court exercised its discretion to impose minimum punishment, noting the accused's poor financial circumstances, his status as the sole earning family member, his remorse, and this being his first offense. 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. 170/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC NO. 170/2026 The court convicted Pratapji Bhemaji Thakor under IPC Section 65A (Bombay Prohibition Act) for an offense related to prohibited substances. The court sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 and, in default of payment, to two days imprisonment, while ordering release of seized materials as per law. The court exercised its discretion to impose minimum punishment, noting the accused's poor financial circumstances, his status as the sole earning family member, his remorse, and this being his first offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case