THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs HARESHBHAI SUKHABHAI MAKWANA Advocate - M M SORTHIYA — 1058/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN050014322025
Filing Number
1058/2025
Filing Date
15-05-2025
Registration No
1058/2025
Registration Date
15-05-2025
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
11198070250220
Police Station
MAHUVA RURAL POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
HARESHBHAI SUKHABHAI MAKWANA Advocate - M M SORTHIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
PLEA
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
The court imposed a reduced sentence on the accused Hareshbhai Sukhabhai Makwana, sentencing him to a fine of ₹100 (rupees one hundred only) instead of imprisonment under Section 275(1) of the IPC 2023, considering his poor financial condition, family dependents, and the adverse impact imprisonment would have on his family's livelihood. The court found special and compelling reasons to impose minimum punishment rather than the prescribed sentence, noting the accused's first offense, promise of good behavior, and circumstances warranting leniency under sentencing principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court imposed a reduced sentence on the accused Hareshbhai Sukhabhai Makwana, sentencing him to a fine of ₹100 (rupees one hundred only) instead of imprisonment under Section 275(1) of the IPC 2023, considering his poor financial condition, family dependents, and the adverse impact imprisonment would have on his family's livelihood. The court found special and compelling reasons to impose minimum punishment rather than the prescribed sentence, noting the accused's first offense, promise of good behavior, and circumstances warranting leniency under sentencing principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts