Government of Gujarat vs HARESHBHAI AALABHAI PARMAR — 52/2026

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: GJDW020000832026

Filing Number

52/2026

Filing Date

06-Jan-2026

Registration No

52/2026

Registration Date

06-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

11185004251851

Police Station

JAM KHAMBHALIA 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.HARESHBHAI AALABHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary of Case 52/2026 The court convicted Hareshbhai Aalabhai Parmar under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 amendments (Section 66(1)(b)), finding sufficient evidence of the alleged offense despite procedural irregularities in the police investigation. The court sentenced the respondent to imprisonment of 150 rupees (or one day simple imprisonment if fine remains unpaid), imposing a lenient sentence based on the respondent's personal circumstances and mitigating factors, while affirming that courts retain discretion to impose lesser sentences when warranted by justice. 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. 09-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 06-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 52/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 52/2026 The court convicted Hareshbhai Aalabhai Parmar under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 amendments (Section 66(1)(b)), finding sufficient evidence of the alleged offense despite procedural irregularities in the police investigation. The court sentenced the respondent to imprisonment of 150 rupees (or one day simple imprisonment if fine remains unpaid), imposing a lenient sentence based on the respondent's personal circumstances and mitigating factors, while affirming that courts retain discretion to impose lesser sentences when warranted by justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case