Government of Gujarat vs TAPU RAMA JOL — 686/2026

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: GJDW020010092026

Filing Number

686/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

686/2026

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

11185004260283

Police Station

JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TAPU RAMA JOL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: CC NO-686-2026 The court convicted Tapu Rama Jol under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for operating a vehicle without proper permit while in an intoxicated state on a public road. The accused voluntarily confessed to the charges, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment of 7 days and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,150, finding him to be a first-time offender from an economically disadvantaged background deserving of reduced punishment. 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. 686/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: CC NO-686-2026 The court convicted Tapu Rama Jol under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for operating a vehicle without proper permit while in an intoxicated state on a public road. The accused voluntarily confessed to the charges, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment of 7 days and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,150, finding him to be a first-time offender from an economically disadvantaged background deserving of reduced punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case