Government of Gujarat vs AMIT BHARAT MAHETA — 681/2026

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: GJDW020010042026

Filing Number

681/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

681/2026

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

11185004260129

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.AMIT BHARAT MAHETA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No. 681/2026 The court convicted Amit Bharat Maheta under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016, Section 66(1)(b) for illegal possession of alcohol. The accused voluntarily confessed to the guilt and requested lenient punishment. The court sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees fine (or one day simple imprisonment in default), applying mitigating circumstances including the accused's personal situation and rehabilitation potential to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, in accordance with established judicial principles favoring leniency when justified. 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. 681/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No. 681/2026 The court convicted Amit Bharat Maheta under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016, Section 66(1)(b) for illegal possession of alcohol. The accused voluntarily confessed to the guilt and requested lenient punishment. The court sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees fine (or one day simple imprisonment in default), applying mitigating circumstances including the accused's personal situation and rehabilitation potential to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, in accordance with established judicial principles favoring leniency when justified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case