Government of Gujarat vs NADIMBHAI SHAHNJAHA PIRJADA — 672/2026

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: GJDW020009952026

Filing Number

672/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

672/2026

Registration Date

09-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

11185004260339

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

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NADIMBHAI SHAHNJAHA PIRJADA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the respondent, Nadimbhai Shahnjaha Pirjada, under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and amendments 2016, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 rupees (one thousand fifty rupees) with an alternative of simple imprisonment for one day if the fine remains unpaid. The court found sufficient grounds to impose a lenient sentence considering the respondent's circumstances and rehabilitation prospects, while maintaining that justice required conviction under the applicable prohibition law. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 672/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the respondent, Nadimbhai Shahnjaha Pirjada, under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and amendments 2016, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 rupees (one thousand fifty rupees) with an alternative of simple imprisonment for one day if the fine remains unpaid. The court found sufficient grounds to impose a lenient sentence considering the respondent's circumstances and rehabilitation prospects, while maintaining that justice required conviction under the applicable prohibition law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case