Government of Gujarat vs DHANAJI BHIKHABHAI JOD — 359/2026

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: GJDW020005662026

Filing Number

359/2026

Filing Date

10-Feb-2026

Registration No

359/2026

Registration Date

10-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

11185008250436

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.DHANAJI BHIKHABHAI JOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: CC.No.359/2026 The court convicted Dhanaji Bhikhabhai Jod under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 amendments (Section 66(1)(b)) for illicit liquor possession. The court sentenced him to imprisonment for one day (already served) and imposed a fine of Rs. 150, with the alternative of simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The court determined that while the accused's circumstances and background warranted leniency, sufficient legal grounds existed to impose reduced punishment rather than remit the offense entirely. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 359/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.359/2026 The court convicted Dhanaji Bhikhabhai Jod under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 amendments (Section 66(1)(b)) for illicit liquor possession. The court sentenced him to imprisonment for one day (already served) and imposed a fine of Rs. 150, with the alternative of simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The court determined that while the accused's circumstances and background warranted leniency, sufficient legal grounds existed to impose reduced punishment rather than remit the offense entirely. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case