State of Gujarat vs RAMESHBHAI LAKHAMANBHAI VAGHELA — 375/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020006772026

Filing Number

375/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

375/2026

Registration Date

09-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 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11186004250960

Police Station

PRABHAS PATAN POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMESHBHAI LAKHAMANBHAI VAGHELA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused Rameshbhai Lakhamanbhai Waghela under Section 66(1)B of the BNS (a criminal offense) based on his voluntary confession. Considering the precedent that "special and adequate reasons" are required to impose punishment less than the minimum prescribed sentence, and taking into account the accused's economic condition and plea for mercy, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 fine and imprisonment until the court rises, with one day simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 375/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Rameshbhai Lakhamanbhai Waghela under Section 66(1)B of the BNS (a criminal offense) based on his voluntary confession. Considering the precedent that "special and adequate reasons" are required to impose punishment less than the minimum prescribed sentence, and taking into account the accused's economic condition and plea for mercy, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 fine and imprisonment until the court rises, with one day simple imprisonment as an alternative 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