Government of Gujarat vs RUPABHAI SAMABHAI NINAMA Advocate - D S GANAVA — 118/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85,66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDH050001482026

Filing Number

118/2026

Filing Date

07-Jan-2026

Registration No

118/2026

Registration Date

07-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, JHALOD

Judge

1-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 16-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85,66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RUPABHAI SAMABHAI NINAMA Advocate - D S GANAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused of offenses under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(1)(b), for possessing and consuming alcohol without a license. The court sentenced the accused to imprisonment until court rising and a fine of Rs. 100, with one day's simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remained unpaid, considering the accused's poor economic status and family circumstances as mitigating factors for imposing minimum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 05-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 118/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused of offenses under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(1)(b), for possessing and consuming alcohol without a license. The court sentenced the accused to imprisonment until court rising and a fine of Rs. 100, with one day's simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remained unpaid, considering the accused's poor economic status and family circumstances as mitigating factors for imposing minimum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case