Government of Gujarat vs RANAJITSINH MOHABATSINH JADEJA — 340/2026

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: GJDW020005442026

Filing Number

340/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

340/2026

Registration Date

09-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 12-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11185008250440

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.RANAJITSINH MOHABATSINH JADEJA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted the accused Ranjitsingh Mahabirsingh Jadeja under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, as amended in 2016, and sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees (fine) with an alternative of one day simple imprisonment. The court found that the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and, considering adequate and reasonable grounds along with the accused's circumstances, imposed the minimum sentence to enable rehabilitation and reintegration into society. 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. 07-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 340/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Ranjitsingh Mahabirsingh Jadeja under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, as amended in 2016, and sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees (fine) with an alternative of one day simple imprisonment. The court found that the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and, considering adequate and reasonable grounds along with the accused's circumstances, imposed the minimum sentence to enable rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case