Government of Gujarat vs RITIBA W.O. DILIPSINH JETHUBHA JADEJA — 3133/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020043402025

Filing Number

3133/2025

Filing Date

16-Dec-2025

Registration No

3133/2025

Registration Date

16-Dec-2025

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

11185007250328

Police Station

SALAYA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RITIBA W.O. DILIPSINH JETHUBHA JADEJA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: CC.No.3133/2025 The court convicted the respondent, Ritiba W/O Dilipsinh Jethubha Jadeja, under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended in 2016) for possessing illicit alcohol. The accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and the court, considering adequate grounds for leniency and the accused's circumstances, imposed a reduced sentence of ₹300 fine instead of the maximum prescribed penalty, with an alternative imprisonment of two days if the fine remains unpaid. 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. 12-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 16-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3133/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.3133/2025 The court convicted the respondent, Ritiba W/O Dilipsinh Jethubha Jadeja, under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended in 2016) for possessing illicit alcohol. The accused voluntarily confessed to the offense and the court, considering adequate grounds for leniency and the accused's circumstances, imposed a reduced sentence of ₹300 fine instead of the maximum prescribed penalty, with an alternative imprisonment of two days if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case