Government of Gujarat vs SWAMI SHREENU PATEL — 530/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020007902026

Filing Number

530/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

530/2026

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

11185007250387

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.SWAMI SHREENU PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary of Case 530/2026 The court convicted Swami Shreenu Patel under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and amendments 2016, Section 65 (A.P.), finding him guilty of violating prohibition laws. The accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300, with an alternate simple imprisonment of 2 days if the fine remains unpaid. The court applied principles of proportionate sentencing, considering mitigating circumstances and the accused's rehabilitative potential. 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. 530/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 530/2026 The court convicted Swami Shreenu Patel under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and amendments 2016, Section 65 (A.P.), finding him guilty of violating prohibition laws. The accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300, with an alternate simple imprisonment of 2 days if the fine remains unpaid. The court applied principles of proportionate sentencing, considering mitigating circumstances and the accused's rehabilitative potential. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case