THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KISHORBHAI LAKHABHAI DODIYA Advocate - M M SORTHIYA — 725/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN050010542025

Case disposed

Filing Number

725/2025

Filing Date

19-04-2025

Registration No

725/2025

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

11198035250228

Police Station

MAHUVA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

KISHORBHAI LAKHABHAI DODIYA Advocate - M M SORTHIYA

Hearing History

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

14-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

PLEA

11-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

19-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

12-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

Case Summary: 725/2025 The Gujarat High Court (Mehsana Bench) reduced the sentence of Kishorbhai Lakhabhai Dodiya, convicted under Section 54(1) of the Prohibition Act 2003, from the minimum prescribed fine of ₹100 to ₹0 with 5 days simple imprisonment instead. The court exercised its discretionary power to impose a reduced sentence citing special circumstances: the accused's impoverished status, sole responsibility for family sustenance, first-time offender status, and genuine remorse—factors indicating that imprisonment would adversely impact his dependents' welfare and socioeconomic condition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 725/2025 The Gujarat High Court (Mehsana Bench) reduced the sentence of Kishorbhai Lakhabhai Dodiya, convicted under Section 54(1) of the Prohibition Act 2003, from the minimum prescribed fine of ₹100 to ₹0 with 5 days simple imprisonment instead. The court exercised its discretionary power to impose a reduced sentence citing special circumstances: the accused's impoverished status, sole responsibility for family sustenance, first-time offender status, and genuine remorse—factors indicating that imprisonment would adversely impact his dependents' welfare and socioeconomic condition. 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