Govt. of Gujarat vs JAYESHBHAI NARANBHAI VANSH — 805/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS040009862026

Filing Number

805/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

805/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-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

11186003260132

Police Station

NAVABANDAR MARINE POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govt. of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAYESHBHAI NARANBHAI VANSH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused, Jayeshbhai Naranbhai Vansh, under the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-2016, sections 65(a) and 116(b), after the accused voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose sentences below the statutory minimum, the court exercised leniency considering the accused's financial condition and potential for reform. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of ₹300, with one day's simple imprisonment as alternative punishment if the fine remains unpaid. 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. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 805/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused, Jayeshbhai Naranbhai Vansh, under the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-2016, sections 65(a) and 116(b), after the accused voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose sentences below the statutory minimum, the court exercised leniency considering the accused's financial condition and potential for reform. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of ₹300, with one day's simple imprisonment as alternative punishment if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case