Government of Gujarat vs MAHIPATSINH BHIKHUBHA GOHIL — 305/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020004702026

Filing Number

305/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

305/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-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

11185008250412

Police Station

VADINAR MARINE POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHIPATSINH BHIKHUBHA GOHIL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.305/2026 The court convicted Mahipatsinh Bhikhubha Gohil under Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended 2016), Section 66(1)(b) for illegal possession of liquor. The accused voluntarily confessed to the crime and the court, considering his circumstances and conduct, imposed a reduced sentence of Rs. 150 fine (instead of the statutory minimum) with one day simple imprisonment as an alternative, finding sufficient and special reasons to impose lenient punishment in the interests of justice. 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. 05-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 02-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 305/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.305/2026 The court convicted Mahipatsinh Bhikhubha Gohil under Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended 2016), Section 66(1)(b) for illegal possession of liquor. The accused voluntarily confessed to the crime and the court, considering his circumstances and conduct, imposed a reduced sentence of Rs. 150 fine (instead of the statutory minimum) with one day simple imprisonment as an alternative, finding sufficient and special reasons to impose lenient punishment in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case