Government of Gujarat vs MUKTABEN KARUBHAI HARIYANI — 317/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020004992026

Filing Number

317/2026

Filing Date

04-Feb-2026

Registration No

317/2026

Registration Date

04-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

11185004252127

Police Station

JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MUKTABEN KARUBHAI HARIYANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: CC.No.317/2026 The court convicted respondent Muktaben Karubhai Hariyani under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and amendments 2016, section 65 (IPC). The respondent voluntarily confessed to the crime and filed a plea for reduced sentencing, citing sufficient and reasonable grounds. The court imposed a fine of ₹300 instead of the maximum penalty, recognizing her circumstances warrant leniency while maintaining 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. 06-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 04-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 317/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.317/2026 The court convicted respondent Muktaben Karubhai Hariyani under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and amendments 2016, section 65 (IPC). The respondent voluntarily confessed to the crime and filed a plea for reduced sentencing, citing sufficient and reasonable grounds. The court imposed a fine of ₹300 instead of the maximum penalty, recognizing her circumstances warrant leniency while maintaining 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