Government of Gujarat vs KHENGAR KARASHANBHAI DHORIYA — 683/2026

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: GJDW020010062026

Filing Number

683/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

683/2026

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

11185004260048

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.KHENGAR KARASHANBHAI DHORIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.683/2026 The court convicted Khengar Karashanbhai Dhoriya under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 and Amendments 2016, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 days and a fine of Rs. 150 (or one month additional imprisonment if fine unpaid). The court found sufficient grounds for conviction based on the accused's voluntary confession and substantiating evidence, and exercised discretion to impose a lighter sentence considering the accused's personal circumstances and rehabilitation potential. 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. 683/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.683/2026 The court convicted Khengar Karashanbhai Dhoriya under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 and Amendments 2016, Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 150 days and a fine of Rs. 150 (or one month additional imprisonment if fine unpaid). The court found sufficient grounds for conviction based on the accused's voluntary confession and substantiating evidence, and exercised discretion to impose a lighter sentence considering the accused's personal circumstances and rehabilitation potential. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case