Government of Gujarat vs JAVID ALIAS HANTO HARUN SANGHAR — 513/2026

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: GJDW020007662026

Filing Number

513/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

513/2026

Registration Date

23-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

11185007250397

Police Station

SALAYA 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.JAVID ALIAS HANTO HARUN SANGHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.513/2026 The court convicted Javid alias Hanto Harun Sanghar under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016, Section 66(1)(b) for possession of illicit liquor. The accused voluntarily confessed to the charge and the court, considering mitigating circumstances including the accused's personal condition and financial situation, sentenced him to imprisonment of one day already undergone in custody plus a fine of Rs. 150 (in lieu of one additional day imprisonment if fine is not paid), rather than imposing the maximum prescribed 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. 23-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 513/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.513/2026 The court convicted Javid alias Hanto Harun Sanghar under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016, Section 66(1)(b) for possession of illicit liquor. The accused voluntarily confessed to the charge and the court, considering mitigating circumstances including the accused's personal condition and financial situation, sentenced him to imprisonment of one day already undergone in custody plus a fine of Rs. 150 (in lieu of one additional day imprisonment if fine is not paid), rather than imposing the maximum prescribed 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