Government of Gujarat vs HITEN BABUBHAI DORU — 689/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B,85(1),85(3). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW020010122026
Filing Number
689/2026
Filing Date
09-03-2026
Registration No
689/2026
Registration Date
09-03-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT, KHAMBHALIA
Judge
4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT
FIR Details
FIR Number
11185004260056
Police Station
JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
HITEN BABUBHAI DORU
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 12-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 09-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC.No.689/2026 The court convicted respondent Hiten Babubhai Doru under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 and 2016 amendments (Sections 66(1)(b), 65(1), 65(3)) for illegal possession of alcohol, sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 500 with simple imprisonment as alternative. The court found sufficient and credible reasons to impose a reduced sentence considering the respondent's circumstances, holding that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, mitigating factors warranted a lighter punishment than the statutory minimum prescribed under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC.No.689/2026 The court convicted respondent Hiten Babubhai Doru under Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 and 2016 amendments (Sections 66(1)(b), 65(1), 65(3)) for illegal possession of alcohol, sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 500 with simple imprisonment as alternative. The court found sufficient and credible reasons to impose a reduced sentence considering the respondent's circumstances, holding that while the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, mitigating factors warranted a lighter punishment than the statutory minimum prescribed under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts