THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAJUBHAI MAGANBHAI MAKWANA — 502/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN040008042026

e-Filing Number

02-03-2026

Filing Number

502/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

502/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, TALAJA

Judge

6-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

105

Police Station

TALAJA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(b)

Petitioner(s)

1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Respondent(s)

1.RAJUBHAI MAGANBHAI MAKWANA

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
14-Mar-2026

OrderView PDF

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Rajubhai Maganbhai Makwana (502/2026) The court convicted the accused under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 185 and IPC Section 66(1) for driving under the influence of alcohol. However, recognizing mitigating circumstances—the accused being a first-time offender from a poor family supporting dependents—the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹2,100 fine instead of rigorous imprisonment, applying principles of judicial discretion to balance justice with compassion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
14-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
13-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
05-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 502/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Rajubhai Maganbhai Makwana (502/2026) The court convicted the accused under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 185 and IPC Section 66(1) for driving under the influence of alcohol. However, recognizing mitigating circumstances—the accused being a first-time offender from a poor family supporting dependents—the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹2,100 fine instead of rigorous imprisonment, applying principles of judicial discretion to balance justice with compassion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.