Government of Gujarat vs AYUB AMAD KAKKAL — 569/2026

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: GJDW020008382026

Filing Number

569/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

569/2026

Registration Date

25-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

11185008260021

Police Station

VADINAR MARINE POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AYUB AMAD KAKKAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.569/2026 The court convicted Ayub Amad Kakkal under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 Amendments for possessing illicit liquor. The defendant voluntarily confessed to the crime and filed for reduced sentencing. The court sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees fine with provision for simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid, considering his circumstances and background while balancing societal interest in rehabilitation. 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. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 569/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.569/2026 The court convicted Ayub Amad Kakkal under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 Amendments for possessing illicit liquor. The defendant voluntarily confessed to the crime and filed for reduced sentencing. The court sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees fine with provision for simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid, considering his circumstances and background while balancing societal interest in rehabilitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case