THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SHARADBHAI KALUBHAI VASIYA Advocate - M M SORTHIYA — 883/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN050012252025
Filing Number
883/2025
Filing Date
28-Apr-2025
Registration No
883/2025
Registration Date
28-Apr-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA
Judge
3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198035240165
Police Station
MAHUVA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHARADBHAI KALUBHAI VASIYA Advocate - M M SORTHIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Order
The court convicted Sharadbhai Kalubhai Vasiya under Section 54(1) of the Prohibition Act, but reduced the sentence to a fine of ₹100 instead of the minimum prescribed punishment. The court exercised discretionary leniency considering the accused's impoverished background, sole responsibility for family support, first-time offender status, and potential hardship to dependents if imprisoned, finding special and adequate reasons to impose the lesser sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Mar-2026
Plea
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
18-Nov-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Sep-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
11-Sep-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
12-Jul-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
05-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 883/2025
The court convicted Sharadbhai Kalubhai Vasiya under Section 54(1) of the Prohibition Act, but reduced the sentence to a fine of ₹100 instead of the minimum prescribed punishment. The court exercised discretionary leniency considering the accused's impoverished background, sole responsibility for family support, first-time offender status, and potential hardship to dependents if imprisoned, finding special and adequate reasons to impose the lesser sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts