Government of Gujarat vs MAHESHBHAI NARSHIBHAI SOLANKI — 104/2026

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: GJJN080001192026

Filing Number

104/2026

Filing Date

08-Jan-2026

Registration No

104/2026

Registration Date

08-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

1-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250829

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHESHBHAI NARSHIBHAI SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case 104/2026 Summary: The court convicted Maheshbhai Narshibhai Solanki under the Bombay Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b), imposing a fine of ₹100 with an alternative imprisonment sentence of 2 days. The court considered the accused's socioeconomic circumstances, family responsibilities, and voluntary confession demonstrating reform potential as mitigating factors. All seized valuables were ordered forfeited to the government, with vehicle disposal and bail bond cancellation procedures prescribed accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 08-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 104/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 104/2026 Summary: The court convicted Maheshbhai Narshibhai Solanki under the Bombay Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b), imposing a fine of ₹100 with an alternative imprisonment sentence of 2 days. The court considered the accused's socioeconomic circumstances, family responsibilities, and voluntary confession demonstrating reform potential as mitigating factors. All seized valuables were ordered forfeited to the government, with vehicle disposal and bail bond cancellation procedures prescribed accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case