STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAMSHIBHA LALABHA HATHAL — 567/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW040006052026

Filing Number

567/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

567/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, OKHAMANDAL

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

111885005260246

Police Station

MITHAPUR POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMSHIBHA LALABHA HATHAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted respondent Ramshibha Lalabha Hathal under IPC Section 185 and Probation of Offenders Act Section 12(1)(b) for drunk driving. The court imposed lenient sentences—₹2,000 fine under Section 185 with 15 days simple imprisonment in default, and ₹300 fine under Section 12(1)(b) with 7 days simple imprisonment in default—considering the respondent's poverty, family responsibilities, and potential for reformation, while emphasizing that punishment aims to reform offenders and restore them to society with dignity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 567/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted respondent Ramshibha Lalabha Hathal under IPC Section 185 and Probation of Offenders Act Section 12(1)(b) for drunk driving. The court imposed lenient sentences—₹2,000 fine under Section 185 with 15 days simple imprisonment in default, and ₹300 fine under Section 12(1)(b) with 7 days simple imprisonment in default—considering the respondent's poverty, family responsibilities, and potential for reformation, while emphasizing that punishment aims to reform offenders and restore them to society with dignity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case