THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs BHAVESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI GOSAI — 1070/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 17th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN050014442025

Case disposed

Filing Number

1070/2025

Filing Date

15-05-2025

Registration No

1070/2025

Registration Date

15-05-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA

Judge

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

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

FIR Details

FIR Number

11994002250051

Police Station

BHAVNAGAR RLY.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)

BHAVESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI GOSAI

Hearing History

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

17-04-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

27-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

13-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

18-11-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
ORDER

The court convicted respondent Bhaveshbhai Pravinbhai Gosai under IPC Section 275 (Provision Act) and sentenced him to a fine of ₹300 (or 5 days simple imprisonment in default). The court found that while the offense was established, mitigating circumstances—including the accused's poor economic and social status, this being his first offense, his family's dependence on him as the primary earner, and his legal ignorance—warranted imposing minimum punishment rather than maximum prescribed sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted respondent Bhaveshbhai Pravinbhai Gosai under IPC Section 275 (Provision Act) and sentenced him to a fine of ₹300 (or 5 days simple imprisonment in default). The court found that while the offense was established, mitigating circumstances—including the accused's poor economic and social status, this being his first offense, his family's dependence on him as the primary earner, and his legal ignorance—warranted imposing minimum punishment rather than maximum prescribed sentence. 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