State of Gujarat vs KANTABEN ARVINDBHAI GOHEL — 523/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020008732026

Filing Number

523/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

523/2026

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

11186009250919

Police Station

VERAVAL POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KANTABEN ARVINDBHAI GOHEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kantaben Arvindbhai Gohel (523/2026) The accused, Kantaben Arvindbhai Gohel, voluntarily pleaded guilty to charges under Section 67-A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court, applying the principle that special and adequate reasons justify sentences below the statutory minimum, imposed a lenient sentence considering the accused's financial condition and plea for mercy. The accused was convicted and sentenced to a fine of ₹500 or one day simple imprisonment in default, with confiscated contraband to be 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. 523/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kantaben Arvindbhai Gohel (523/2026) The accused, Kantaben Arvindbhai Gohel, voluntarily pleaded guilty to charges under Section 67-A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court, applying the principle that special and adequate reasons justify sentences below the statutory minimum, imposed a lenient sentence considering the accused's financial condition and plea for mercy. The accused was convicted and sentenced to a fine of ₹500 or one day simple imprisonment in default, with confiscated contraband to be 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