THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs JITUBHAI GOPABHAI MAKVANA Advocate - G A JOGSAN — 102/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(b). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN090001262026

e-Filing Number

11-03-2026

Filing Number

102/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

102/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, UMRALA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198059260058

Police Station

UMRALA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JITUBHAI GOPABHAI MAKVANA Advocate - G A JOGSAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate convicted Jitubhai Gopabhai Makvana under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)B after he voluntarily confessed to the offense. Considering mitigating factors including the accused's remorse, first-time offense, role as sole family earner, and socio-economic circumstances, the court imposed a lenient sentence of 3 days simple imprisonment instead of the statutory minimum, with credit for 17 days of judicial custody already served. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 102/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate convicted Jitubhai Gopabhai Makvana under the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)B after he voluntarily confessed to the offense. Considering mitigating factors including the accused's remorse, first-time offense, role as sole family earner, and socio-economic circumstances, the court imposed a lenient sentence of 3 days simple imprisonment instead of the statutory minimum, with credit for 17 days of judicial custody already served. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case