THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DUNGARAJI MAFAJI THAKOR — 224/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK210002502026

Filing Number

224/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

224/2026

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

11996001260045

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.DUNGARAJI MAFAJI THAKOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary of Case 224/2026: State of Gujarat v. Dungaraji Mafaji Thakor The court convicted the accused, Dungaraji Mafaji (Parmar) Thakor, under IPC Section 65A for a common offense. Considering mitigating factors—the accused's poor financial condition, being the sole earning family member, and this being a first offense—the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine instead of the maximum prescribed penalty, allowing the accused to maintain dignity and rehabilitation in society. 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. 224/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 224/2026: State of Gujarat v. Dungaraji Mafaji Thakor The court convicted the accused, Dungaraji Mafaji (Parmar) Thakor, under IPC Section 65A for a common offense. Considering mitigating factors—the accused's poor financial condition, being the sole earning family member, and this being a first offense—the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine instead of the maximum prescribed penalty, allowing the accused to maintain dignity and rehabilitation in society. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case