Government of Gujarat vs BIPIN HIRABHAI RATHOL — 713/2026

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: GJDW020010362026

Filing Number

713/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

713/2026

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

11185007260004

Police Station

SALAYA 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.BIPIN HIRABHAI RATHOL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary - CC.No.713/2026 The court convicted Bipin Hirabhai Rathol under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016, Section 66(1)(b), finding him guilty of possession of illicit liquor. The accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and pleaded for leniency. The court sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 150 (one hundred fifty rupees) and imprisonment for one day, considering his circumstances and the principle that courts retain discretion to impose lesser punishment when sufficient and justified reasons exist for leniency. 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. 713/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - CC.No.713/2026 The court convicted Bipin Hirabhai Rathol under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendment 2016, Section 66(1)(b), finding him guilty of possession of illicit liquor. The accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and pleaded for leniency. The court sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 150 (one hundred fifty rupees) and imprisonment for one day, considering his circumstances and the principle that courts retain discretion to impose lesser punishment when sufficient and justified reasons exist for leniency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case