THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MADHABHAI KALABHAI PARMAR — 182/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK210002052026

Filing Number

182/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

182/2026

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

11996001260012

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.MADHABHAI KALABHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary of Case 182/2026: State of Gujarat v. Madhabhai Kalabhai Parmar The court convicted Madhabhai Kalabhai Parmar under IPC Section 65 (a general offense) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100, with six months simple imprisonment as alternative punishment. The court considered the accused's socioeconomic circumstances, first-time offender status, and poverty while exercising its discretionary power to impose minimum sentence rather than maximum punishment. 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. 182/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 182/2026: State of Gujarat v. Madhabhai Kalabhai Parmar The court convicted Madhabhai Kalabhai Parmar under IPC Section 65 (a general offense) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100, with six months simple imprisonment as alternative punishment. The court considered the accused's socioeconomic circumstances, first-time offender status, and poverty while exercising its discretionary power to impose minimum sentence rather than maximum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case