Government of Gujarat vs DASHARATH BAPULAL BHILVADA — 272/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW020003992026
Filing Number
272/2026
Filing Date
27-Jan-2026
Registration No
272/2026
Registration Date
27-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
11185004252132
Police Station
JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.DASHARATH BAPULAL BHILVADA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: CC.No.272/2026 The court convicted respondent Dasharath Bapulal Bhilvada under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendments 2016, Section 66(1)(b) for illegal possession of liquor. The accused voluntarily confessed to the crime during investigation and pleaded guilty before the court. Considering the accused's circumstances, socioeconomic condition, and the nature of the offense, the court imposed a reduced sentence of imprisonment for one day (simple imprisonment) and a fine of Rs. 150 (or one day additional imprisonment in default), exercising its discretionary power to impose minimum punishment based on "sufficient and reasonable grounds" as established in precedent. 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
-
27-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 272/2026
Case Summary: CC.No.272/2026 The court convicted respondent Dasharath Bapulal Bhilvada under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendments 2016, Section 66(1)(b) for illegal possession of liquor. The accused voluntarily confessed to the crime during investigation and pleaded guilty before the court. Considering the accused's circumstances, socioeconomic condition, and the nature of the offense, the court imposed a reduced sentence of imprisonment for one day (simple imprisonment) and a fine of Rs. 150 (or one day additional imprisonment in default), exercising its discretionary power to impose minimum punishment based on "sufficient and reasonable grounds" as established in precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts