Government of Gujarat vs KANABHAI KARMANBHAI RUDACH — 171/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW020002562026
Filing Number
171/2026
Filing Date
17-Jan-2026
Registration No
171/2026
Registration Date
17-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
11185004252086
Police Station
JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.KANABHAI KARMANBHAI RUDACH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Order
Case Summary: CC.No.171/2026 The court convicted Kanabhai Karmanbhai Rudach under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 days and a fine of Rs. 150 (or one day simple imprisonment in default). The court found that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, considering his circumstances and the nature of the crime, a reduced sentence was justified rather than the statutory minimum, affirming that courts retain discretion to impose lenient sentences when sufficient and special reasons warrant it. 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
-
23-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 171/2026
Case Summary: CC.No.171/2026 The court convicted Kanabhai Karmanbhai Rudach under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 days and a fine of Rs. 150 (or one day simple imprisonment in default). The court found that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, considering his circumstances and the nature of the crime, a reduced sentence was justified rather than the statutory minimum, affirming that courts retain discretion to impose lenient sentences when sufficient and special reasons warrant it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts