Government of Gujarat vs JAVED ADAM BAROYA Advocate - B R KOTECHA — 5/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020000122026

Filing Number

5/2026

Filing Date

02-Jan-2026

Registration No

5/2026

Registration Date

02-Jan-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT, KHAMBHALIA

Judge

4-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11185007250365

Police Station

SALAYA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAVED ADAM BAROYA Advocate - B R KOTECHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: CC.No.5/2026 The court convicted Javed Adam Baroya under Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and amendments 2016, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 150 rupees fine. The court found that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, mitigating circumstances such as his personal situation and rehabilitation potential warranted imposing the minimum prescribed sentence rather than maximum punishment, in accordance with established jurisprudence that courts must consider adequate and special reasons for lenient sentencing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 02-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 02-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 5/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.5/2026 The court convicted Javed Adam Baroya under Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and amendments 2016, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 150 rupees fine. The court found that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, mitigating circumstances such as his personal situation and rehabilitation potential warranted imposing the minimum prescribed sentence rather than maximum punishment, in accordance with established jurisprudence that courts must consider adequate and special reasons for lenient sentencing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case