State of Gujarat vs MAHESHBHAI ARJANBHAI VAJA — 520/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020008692026

Filing Number

520/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

520/2026

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

11186009250696

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.MAHESHBHAI ARJANBHAI VAJA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Maheshbhai Arjanbhai Vaja (520/2026) The court found the accused guilty under BNS Section 27(b) on a charge under Prohibition law after he voluntarily confessed to the offense. Applying principles requiring special and adequate reasons for sentencing below the minimum, and considering the accused's financial circumstances and plea for leniency, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹500 fine and imprisonment until court rising, with one day simple imprisonment as default penalty. Seized prohibition materials were ordered destroyed. 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. 520/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Maheshbhai Arjanbhai Vaja (520/2026) The court found the accused guilty under BNS Section 27(b) on a charge under Prohibition law after he voluntarily confessed to the offense. Applying principles requiring special and adequate reasons for sentencing below the minimum, and considering the accused's financial circumstances and plea for leniency, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹500 fine and imprisonment until court rising, with one day simple imprisonment as default penalty. Seized prohibition materials were ordered destroyed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case