THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ASHOKBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MAHIDA Advocate - M M SHIYAL — 882/2025

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN050012242025

Case disposed

Filing Number

882/2025

Filing Date

28-04-2025

Registration No

882/2025

Registration Date

28-04-2025

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

11198035240310

Police Station

MAHUVA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

ASHOKBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MAHIDA Advocate - M M SHIYAL

Hearing History

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

14-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

PLEA

26-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

13-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

18-11-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

The High Court of Gujarat convicted Ashokbhai Chhaganbhai Mahida under Section 64(1) of the Prohibition Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 (or five days simple imprisonment if fine is not paid), showing leniency based on the accused's impoverished background, family responsibilities, and circumstances that warranted reduced punishment below the statutory minimum. The court exercised its discretionary power to impose a lighter sentence, considering the accused's socioeconomic condition and potential adverse impact on his dependents if imprisoned. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Gujarat convicted Ashokbhai Chhaganbhai Mahida under Section 64(1) of the Prohibition Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 (or five days simple imprisonment if fine is not paid), showing leniency based on the accused's impoverished background, family responsibilities, and circumstances that warranted reduced punishment below the statutory minimum. The court exercised its discretionary power to impose a lighter sentence, considering the accused's socioeconomic condition and potential adverse impact on his dependents if imprisoned. 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