State of Gujarat vs ANILBHAI SAVJIBHAI PARMAR — 522/2026

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: GJGS020008722026

Filing Number

522/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

522/2026

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

11186009250314

Police Station

VERAVAL 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.ANILBHAI SAVJIBHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary of Case 522/2026: State of Gujarat v. Anilbhai Savjibhai Parmar The court found the accused Anilbhai Savjibhai Parmar guilty under Section 66(1)(B) of the relevant statute after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that special and adequate reasons are required to impose less than the minimum sentence, and considering the accused's financial circumstances and plea for mercy, the court adopted a lenient approach. The accused was sentenced to a fine of ₹100 with imprisonment until court rising, or one day simple imprisonment in default of fine payment. 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. 522/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 522/2026: State of Gujarat v. Anilbhai Savjibhai Parmar The court found the accused Anilbhai Savjibhai Parmar guilty under Section 66(1)(B) of the relevant statute after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that special and adequate reasons are required to impose less than the minimum sentence, and considering the accused's financial circumstances and plea for mercy, the court adopted a lenient approach. The accused was sentenced to a fine of ₹100 with imprisonment until court rising, or one day simple imprisonment in default of fine payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case