THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRAKASHBHAI DHIRUBHAI SHIYAL Advocate - P U GAUSWAMI — 702/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN050010312025

Case disposed

Filing Number

702/2025

Filing Date

19-04-2025

Registration No

702/2025

Registration Date

19-04-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA

Judge

3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198035230898

Police Station

MAHUVA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

PRAKASHBHAI DHIRUBHAI SHIYAL Advocate - P U GAUSWAMI

Hearing History

Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

14-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

PLEA

10-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

19-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

12-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

Case Summary: 702/2025 The Gujarat High Court convicted the respondent Prakashbhai Dhirubhai Shiyal under Section 54(1) of the Prohibition Act, imposing a fine of ₹100 instead of the minimum statutory penalty, citing special circumstances including the accused's economic hardship and family dependence. The court exercised discretion to impose a lenient sentence below the minimum prescribed punishment, considering the accused's impoverished status, family obligations, and potential adverse impact of imprisonment on dependents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 702/2025 The Gujarat High Court convicted the respondent Prakashbhai Dhirubhai Shiyal under Section 54(1) of the Prohibition Act, imposing a fine of ₹100 instead of the minimum statutory penalty, citing special circumstances including the accused's economic hardship and family dependence. The court exercised discretion to impose a lenient sentence below the minimum prescribed punishment, considering the accused's impoverished status, family obligations, and potential adverse impact of imprisonment on dependents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case