State of Gujarat vs AMRUTLAL SAKARBHAI BAMNIA — 514/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020008582026

Filing Number

514/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

514/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court, Veraval

Judge

15-Addl. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11186009250714

Police Station

VERAVAL POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AMRUTLAL SAKARBHAI BAMNIA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found accused Amrutlal Sakarbhai Bamnia guilty under BNS Section 275 (corresponding to IPC Section 6-A) after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose sentences below the statutory minimum, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹500 fine with time already served as imprisonment, considering the accused's financial condition and plea for mercy. Confiscated prohibited articles were ordered destroyed post-appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. CIVIL Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 514/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found accused Amrutlal Sakarbhai Bamnia guilty under BNS Section 275 (corresponding to IPC Section 6-A) after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose sentences below the statutory minimum, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹500 fine with time already served as imprisonment, considering the accused's financial condition and plea for mercy. Confiscated prohibited articles were ordered destroyed post-appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case