State of Gujarat vs SANDIP AMRUTLAL SHRIMALI — 524/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020008742026

Filing Number

524/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

524/2026

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

11186009250776

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.SANDIP AMRUTLAL SHRIMALI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 524/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Sandip Amrutlal Shrimali The court found the accused guilty under Section 6(p)A of the relevant statute after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying lenient sentencing principles and considering the accused's financial condition and plea for mercy, the court imposed a fine of ₹500 (with one day imprisonment as alternate punishment if fine remains unpaid) rather than the statutory minimum sentence, citing special and adequate reasons warranting discretionary leniency in this case. 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. 524/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 524/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Sandip Amrutlal Shrimali The court found the accused guilty under Section 6(p)A of the relevant statute after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying lenient sentencing principles and considering the accused's financial condition and plea for mercy, the court imposed a fine of ₹500 (with one day imprisonment as alternate punishment if fine remains unpaid) rather than the statutory minimum sentence, citing special and adequate reasons warranting discretionary leniency in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case