Government of Gujarat vs SALMABEN GARIBSHA SHAMDAR Advocate - A C RANINGA — 1056/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN080016012025

Filing Number

1056/2025

Filing Date

06-Nov-2025

Registration No

1056/2025

Registration Date

06-Nov-2025

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 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250426

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SALMABEN GARIBSHA SHAMDAR Advocate - A C RANINGA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The Gujarat High Court convicted the accused under Section 65(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500 with an alternative imprisonment of two days, while also ordering forfeiture of seized materials and vehicles. The court granted the accused the benefit of probation considering his poor economic status, family responsibilities, and commitment to reformation. 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. 11-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

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

  5. 02-Feb-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 31-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 06-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1056/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court convicted the accused under Section 65(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500 with an alternative imprisonment of two days, while also ordering forfeiture of seized materials and vehicles. The court granted the accused the benefit of probation considering his poor economic status, family responsibilities, and commitment to reformation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case