State of Gujarat vs SANJAYBHAI NEHRUBHAI RABHA — 307/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS020005952026
Filing Number
307/2026
Filing Date
06-Mar-2026
Registration No
307/2026
Registration Date
06-Mar-2026
Court
Civil Court, Veraval
Judge
10-4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
Last updated 21-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SANJAYBHAI NEHRUBHAI RABHA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court convicted accused Sanjaybhai Nehruabhai Rabha of offenses under Section 66(1)B of the Prohibition Act and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, based on his voluntary confession. Applying the principle that special and adequate reasons must exist to impose sentences below statutory minimums, the court imposed lenient sentences: ₹100 fine for the Prohibition Act offense and ₹1,000 fine for the Motor Vehicles Act offense (total ₹1,100), with one day simple imprisonment as default punishment, considering the accused's economic condition and prospects for reformation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
06-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 307/2026
The court convicted accused Sanjaybhai Nehruabhai Rabha of offenses under Section 66(1)B of the Prohibition Act and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, based on his voluntary confession. Applying the principle that special and adequate reasons must exist to impose sentences below statutory minimums, the court imposed lenient sentences: ₹100 fine for the Prohibition Act offense and ₹1,000 fine for the Motor Vehicles Act offense (total ₹1,100), with one day simple imprisonment as default punishment, considering the accused's economic condition and prospects for reformation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts