Govt. of Gujarat vs DANABHAI BHIKHABHAI BAMBHANIYA — 693/2026

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: GJGS040008212026

Filing Number

693/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

693/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, UNA

Judge

7-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 21-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govt. of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DANABHAI BHIKHABHAI BAMBHANIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused Danabhai Bhikhabhai Bambhaniya under Section 27 of the BNS (Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2016) after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose less than the minimum statutory sentence, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine (with one day imprisonment as alternative) considering the accused's financial condition and rehabilitation prospects. The court also ordered destruction of prohibited materials and issued directions regarding vehicles and mobile phones seized in the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Lok Adalat

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 693/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Danabhai Bhikhabhai Bambhaniya under Section 27 of the BNS (Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2016) after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose less than the minimum statutory sentence, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine (with one day imprisonment as alternative) considering the accused's financial condition and rehabilitation prospects. The court also ordered destruction of prohibited materials and issued directions regarding vehicles and mobile phones seized in the 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