THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs HARESHBHAI TRIKMAJI PADHIYAR — 223/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B,85-1. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK210002492026

Filing Number

223/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

223/2026

Registration Date

20-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

11996001260015

Police Station

AGTHALA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B,85-1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARESHBHAI TRIKMAJI PADHIYAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 223/2026 Summary: The court convicted Hareshbhai Trikmaji Padhiyar under Gujarat Prohibition Act Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1) for illegal liquor possession. Considering mitigating factors—the accused belongs to a poor/middle-class background, is the sole earning family member, and showed remorse with no prior criminal record—the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine instead of the statutory minimum imprisonment, finding sufficient and special reasons to reduce punishment in the interests of justice. 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. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 223/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 223/2026 Summary: The court convicted Hareshbhai Trikmaji Padhiyar under Gujarat Prohibition Act Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1) for illegal liquor possession. Considering mitigating factors—the accused belongs to a poor/middle-class background, is the sole earning family member, and showed remorse with no prior criminal record—the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine instead of the statutory minimum imprisonment, finding sufficient and special reasons to reduce punishment in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case