Government of Gujarat vs HARESH DEVASHIBHAI SODHA — 382/2026

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: GJDW020005922026

Filing Number

382/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

382/2026

Registration Date

11-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

11185004251961

Police Station

JAM KHAMBHALIA 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.HARESH DEVASHIBHAI SODHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted Haresh Devashibhai Sodha under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 and Amendments 2016, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 rupees fine. The court found sufficient grounds to impose the minimum sentence based on the accused's voluntary confession and circumstances, while noting that mitigating factors and the accused's rehabilitation potential warranted reduced rather than maximum punishment. 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. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 382/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted Haresh Devashibhai Sodha under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 and Amendments 2016, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 rupees fine. The court found sufficient grounds to impose the minimum sentence based on the accused's voluntary confession and circumstances, while noting that mitigating factors and the accused's rehabilitation potential warranted reduced rather than maximum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case