Government of Gujarat vs SULTAN ABDULA VADHA — 541/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020008082026

Filing Number

541/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

541/2026

Registration Date

24-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

11185007250406

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.SULTAN ABDULA VADHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.541/2026 The Gujarat court convicted Sultan Abdula Vadha under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 Amendment Section 65(A.P.), imposing a fine of ₹300 (rupees three hundred) and providing for simple imprisonment of two days as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. The court exercised its discretionary power to impose minimum sentence considering the accused's circumstances, mitigating factors, and the doctrine established in precedent law that permits reduced sentences when substantial 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. 24-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 541/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.541/2026 The Gujarat court convicted Sultan Abdula Vadha under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 Amendment Section 65(A.P.), imposing a fine of ₹300 (rupees three hundred) and providing for simple imprisonment of two days as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. The court exercised its discretionary power to impose minimum sentence considering the accused's circumstances, mitigating factors, and the doctrine established in precedent law that permits reduced sentences when substantial 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