Government of Gujarat vs BACHUBHAI DHARAMASHIBHAI PARMAR — 142/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020002242026

Filing Number

142/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

142/2026

Registration Date

16-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

11185004252077

Police Station

JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BACHUBHAI DHARAMASHIBHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted respondent Bachubhai Dharamshbhai Parmar under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 and amendments 2016, finding him guilty of illegal possession and consumption of alcohol. The court sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹300 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default), considering mitigating circumstances and principles established in precedent law that permit reduced sentences when sufficient and justified reasons exist. 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. 21-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 16-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 142/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted respondent Bachubhai Dharamshbhai Parmar under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 and amendments 2016, finding him guilty of illegal possession and consumption of alcohol. The court sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹300 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default), considering mitigating circumstances and principles established in precedent law that permit reduced sentences when sufficient and justified reasons exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case