THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DAYABHAI GIGABHAI SHIYAL Advocate - R S BHALIYA — 839/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN050011802025
Filing Number
839/2025
Filing Date
25-04-2025
Registration No
839/2025
Registration Date
25-04-2025
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
11198035240746
Police Station
MAHUVA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
DAYABHAI GIGABHAI SHIYAL Advocate - R S BHALIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
PLEA
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
Restored
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | PLEA |
| 26-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 13-12-2025 | Restored |
| 13-12-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court convicted the accused under Section 54(1) of the Prohibition Act 2003 but reduced the sentence to a fine of ₹100 instead of imprisonment, considering mitigating factors including the accused's poor economic condition, family dependence, and lack of prior criminal history. The court found that while the minimum prescribed punishment applied, special circumstances warranted imposing a lenient sentence, and noted that imprisonment would adversely affect the accused's family and economic situation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court convicted the accused under Section 54(1) of the Prohibition Act 2003 but reduced the sentence to a fine of ₹100 instead of imprisonment, considering mitigating factors including the accused's poor economic condition, family dependence, and lack of prior criminal history. The court found that while the minimum prescribed punishment applied, special circumstances warranted imposing a lenient sentence, and noted that imprisonment would adversely affect the accused's family and economic situation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts