Government of Gujarat vs SANJAYGIRI ARVINDGIRI GAUSVAMI — 622/2026

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: GJDW020009192026

Filing Number

622/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

622/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-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

11185004260109

Police Station

JAM KHAMBHALIA 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

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANJAYGIRI ARVINDGIRI GAUSVAMI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.622/2026 The court convicted respondent Sanjaygiri Arvindgiri Gauswami under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 Amendment, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 rupees (fine amount appears unclear). The court found that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, proper procedure required consideration of mitigating circumstances to impose minimum sentence and fine rather than maximum punishment, balancing the accused's rehabilitation potential with public interest. 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. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 622/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.622/2026 The court convicted respondent Sanjaygiri Arvindgiri Gauswami under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and 2016 Amendment, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 rupees (fine amount appears unclear). The court found that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, proper procedure required consideration of mitigating circumstances to impose minimum sentence and fine rather than maximum punishment, balancing the accused's rehabilitation potential with public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case