Government of Gujarat vs BHARAT BABUBHAI SARVIYA — 106/2026

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: GJJN080001212026

Filing Number

106/2026

Filing Date

08-Jan-2026

Registration No

106/2026

Registration Date

08-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250922

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.BHARAT BABUBHAI SARVIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: The court convicted Bharat Babubhai Sarviya under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(1)(b) for being in possession of alcohol. The accused pleaded guilty and confessed to the offense. Considering the accused's socio-economic circumstances—he is poor, an uneducated person, sole earner for his family, and the conviction's impact on his dependents—the court sentenced him to a fine of ₹100 or, in default, 2 days simple imprisonment, rather than the maximum penalty, exercising discretionary leniency under established judicial precedent. 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. 13-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 08-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 106/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The court convicted Bharat Babubhai Sarviya under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(1)(b) for being in possession of alcohol. The accused pleaded guilty and confessed to the offense. Considering the accused's socio-economic circumstances—he is poor, an uneducated person, sole earner for his family, and the conviction's impact on his dependents—the court sentenced him to a fine of ₹100 or, in default, 2 days simple imprisonment, rather than the maximum penalty, exercising discretionary leniency under established judicial precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case