Government of Gujarat vs JASHUBHA KANUBHA JADEJA — 204/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW020003102026
Filing Number
204/2026
Filing Date
20-Jan-2026
Registration No
204/2026
Registration Date
20-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
11185008250402
Police Station
VADINAR MARINE POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.JASHUBHA KANUBHA JADEJA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Order
Case Summary: CC.No.204/2026 The court convicted respondent Jashubha Kanubha Jadeja under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended in 2016) for illegal possession of liquor. The defendant voluntarily confessed to the charges and filed a plea for leniency. The court, considering the respondent's circumstances and applying principles established in relevant precedent case law regarding discretionary sentencing, imposed a reduced sentence of ₹300 fine in lieu of imprisonment, finding sufficient and valid reasons to impose a lesser punishment than the statutory minimum, thereby allowing the respondent rehabilitation opportunity. 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-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 204/2026
Case Summary: CC.No.204/2026 The court convicted respondent Jashubha Kanubha Jadeja under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended in 2016) for illegal possession of liquor. The defendant voluntarily confessed to the charges and filed a plea for leniency. The court, considering the respondent's circumstances and applying principles established in relevant precedent case law regarding discretionary sentencing, imposed a reduced sentence of ₹300 fine in lieu of imprisonment, finding sufficient and valid reasons to impose a lesser punishment than the statutory minimum, thereby allowing the respondent rehabilitation opportunity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts