State of Gujarat vs SHAMABEN RAMESHBHAI VANIK — 531/2026

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: GJGS020008822026

Filing Number

531/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

531/2026

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

11186009260120

Police Station

VERAVAL POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHAMABEN RAMESHBHAI VANIK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Shamaben Rameshbhai Vanik (531/2026) The court found the accused Shamaben Rameshbhai Vanik guilty under IPC Section 6A (Prohibition) after she voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" justify deviation from minimum sentencing, the court exercised judicial discretion and imposed a lenient sentence of ₹500 fine with one day simple imprisonment as default punishment, considering her financial circumstances and reformation prospects. 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. 531/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Shamaben Rameshbhai Vanik (531/2026) The court found the accused Shamaben Rameshbhai Vanik guilty under IPC Section 6A (Prohibition) after she voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" justify deviation from minimum sentencing, the court exercised judicial discretion and imposed a lenient sentence of ₹500 fine with one day simple imprisonment as default punishment, considering her financial circumstances and reformation prospects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case