Government of Gujarat vs SULEMANBHAI HASANBHAI SIDA — 1063/2025

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: GJJN080016092025

Filing Number

1063/2025

Filing Date

07-Nov-2025

Registration No

1063/2025

Registration Date

07-Nov-2025

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 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250482

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.SULEMANBHAI HASANBHAI SIDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted the accused under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for possessing liquor and sentenced him to imprisonment until the court rising plus a fine of Rs. 500 (or two days simple imprisonment in default). The court considered the accused's socio-economic circumstances, including his status as a poor family breadwinner requiring work for livelihood, and imposed a lenient sentence lower than the statutory maximum. 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. 11-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 02-Feb-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 31-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 07-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1063/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under Section 65 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for possessing liquor and sentenced him to imprisonment until the court rising plus a fine of Rs. 500 (or two days simple imprisonment in default). The court considered the accused's socio-economic circumstances, including his status as a poor family breadwinner requiring work for livelihood, and imposed a lenient sentence lower than the statutory maximum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case