Govt. of Gujarat vs RAHULBHAI DAYABHAI PARMAR — 696/2026

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: GJGS040008242026

Filing Number

696/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

696/2026

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 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11186008260098

Police Station

UNA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

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.RAHULBHAI DAYABHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused Rahulbhai Dayabhai Parmar under the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2016, Section 27(b), based on his voluntary confession. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must justify sentences below the statutory minimum, the court imposed a lenient sentence considering the accused's financial condition and prospects for reform. The accused was sentenced to a fine of ₹100 or one day simple imprisonment in default, with forfeiture of prohibited articles. 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. 09-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. 696/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Rahulbhai Dayabhai Parmar under the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2016, Section 27(b), based on his voluntary confession. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must justify sentences below the statutory minimum, the court imposed a lenient sentence considering the accused's financial condition and prospects for reform. The accused was sentenced to a fine of ₹100 or one day simple imprisonment in default, with forfeiture of prohibited articles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case