Government of Gujarat vs VIJAYBHAI ARJANBHAI KARANGIYA Advocate - K V CHUDASAMA — 116/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN080001312026

Case disposed

Filing Number

116/2026

Filing Date

08-01-2026

Registration No

116/2026

Registration Date

08-01-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250534

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

VIJAYBHAI ARJANBHAI KARANGIYA Advocate - K V CHUDASAMA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

14-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

20-02-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

Case 116/2026 Summary The court convicted accused Vijay Arjanbhai Karangiya under IPC Section 275 and Bombay Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to a fine of ₹1,004 with alternative simple imprisonment of two days if fine remains unpaid. The court found the accused guilty of prohibition violations and ordered forfeiture of seized valuables, vehicles, and penalty amounts to the government, considering the accused's confession and rehabilitation potential as mitigating circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 116/2026 Summary The court convicted accused Vijay Arjanbhai Karangiya under IPC Section 275 and Bombay Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to a fine of ₹1,004 with alternative simple imprisonment of two days if fine remains unpaid. The court found the accused guilty of prohibition violations and ordered forfeiture of seized valuables, vehicles, and penalty amounts to the government, considering the accused's confession and rehabilitation potential as mitigating circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case