State of Gujarat vs SANGITABEN DINESHBHAI SOLANKI — 518/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020008662026

Filing Number

518/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

518/2026

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

11186009250925

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.SANGITABEN DINESHBHAI SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused Sangitaben Dineshbhai Solanki guilty under Section 6(P)(A) of the relevant statute after she voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that special and adequate reasons must exist to impose a sentence less than the minimum, the court exercised leniency considering the accused's financial condition and appeal for mercy, sentencing her to a fine of Rs. 500 with imprisonment until court rising, or one day simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The court also ordered destruction of the seized prohibited materials after the 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. 518/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused Sangitaben Dineshbhai Solanki guilty under Section 6(P)(A) of the relevant statute after she voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that special and adequate reasons must exist to impose a sentence less than the minimum, the court exercised leniency considering the accused's financial condition and appeal for mercy, sentencing her to a fine of Rs. 500 with imprisonment until court rising, or one day simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The court also ordered destruction of the seized prohibited materials after the 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