Government of Gujarat vs RAMESH JENTIBHAI RATHOD — 423/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020006372026

Filing Number

423/2026

Filing Date

13-Feb-2026

Registration No

423/2026

Registration Date

13-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

11185004252022

Police Station

JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMESH JENTIBHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted the accused Rameshbhai Jentibhai Rathod under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended in 2016) for illegal possession of liquor and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 300. The judgment emphasizes that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, the court considered mitigating circumstances and imposed a reduced sentence below the mandatory minimum to allow the accused opportunities for rehabilitation and social reintegration. 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. 13-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 13-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 423/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Rameshbhai Jentibhai Rathod under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended in 2016) for illegal possession of liquor and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 300. The judgment emphasizes that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, the court considered mitigating circumstances and imposed a reduced sentence below the mandatory minimum to allow the accused opportunities for rehabilitation and social reintegration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case