Government of Gujarat vs UPENDRASINH CHHOTUBHA JADEJA — 596/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW020008792026
Filing Number
596/2026
Filing Date
26-Feb-2026
Registration No
596/2026
Registration Date
26-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
11185008260039
Police Station
VADINAR MARINE POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.UPENDRASINH CHHOTUBHA JADEJA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary of CC.No.596/2026 The court convicted Upendrasinh Chhotubha Jadeja under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016 after the investigating officer found the accused possessed illicit liquor and the accused voluntarily confessed to the charges. While acknowledging the accused's voluntary confession and cooperation, the court sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees fine (one rupee per day equivalent), exercising its discretion to impose minimum punishment considering the accused's circumstances and the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 596/2026
Summary of CC.No.596/2026 The court convicted Upendrasinh Chhotubha Jadeja under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016 after the investigating officer found the accused possessed illicit liquor and the accused voluntarily confessed to the charges. While acknowledging the accused's voluntary confession and cooperation, the court sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees fine (one rupee per day equivalent), exercising its discretion to impose minimum punishment considering the accused's circumstances and the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts