Government of Gujarat vs NAJIR SALEMAMAD SUMBHANIYA — 529/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020007872026

Filing Number

529/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

529/2026

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

11185007250390

Police Station

SALAYA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NAJIR SALEMAMAD SUMBHANIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.529/2026 The court convicted respondent Nasir Saleamamd Sumbhaniya under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(AP) and amendments 2016 for an offense related to prohibited substance. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 300 (three hundred rupees) with an alternate sentence of 2 days simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The judgment considered the accused's plea of guilt, personal circumstances, and potential for rehabilitation, applying the principle that minimum punishment is justified where sufficient and reasonable grounds exist. 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. 529/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.529/2026 The court convicted respondent Nasir Saleamamd Sumbhaniya under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(AP) and amendments 2016 for an offense related to prohibited substance. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 300 (three hundred rupees) with an alternate sentence of 2 days simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The judgment considered the accused's plea of guilt, personal circumstances, and potential for rehabilitation, applying the principle that minimum punishment is justified where sufficient and reasonable grounds exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case