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.
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.HARESHBHAI AALABHAI PARMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
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.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 52/2026
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