Government of Gujarat vs HARSHAD KALIDAS GONDALIYA — 675/2026

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: GJDW020009982026

Filing Number

675/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

675/2026

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

11185004260195

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.HARSHAD KALIDAS GONDALIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.675/2026 The court convicted Harshad Kalidas Gondaliya under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 66(1)(b) and amendments 2016, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 rupees (fine) and directing that if the fine is not paid, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one day. The court found that the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and considered adequate and just reasons to impose minimum sentence, allowing him opportunity for rehabilitation and social reintegration. 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. 675/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.675/2026 The court convicted Harshad Kalidas Gondaliya under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 66(1)(b) and amendments 2016, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 rupees (fine) and directing that if the fine is not paid, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one day. The court found that the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and considered adequate and just reasons to impose minimum sentence, allowing him opportunity for rehabilitation and social reintegration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case