Government of Gujarat vs DILIPBHAI DUDABHAI SONDARVA Advocate - G J MAKADIYA — 1106/2025

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: GJJN080016542025

Filing Number

1106/2025

Filing Date

10-Nov-2025

Registration No

1106/2025

Registration Date

10-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 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250709

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.DILIPBHAI DUDABHAI SONDARVA Advocate - G J MAKADIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court convicted accused Dilipbhai Dudabhai Sondarva under Section 65(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 275 of the IPC, sentencing him to a fine of ₹500 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default). The court considered the accused's claim of being from a poor background and having family responsibilities, finding rehabilitation possible, and imposed a lenient sentence accordingly. All seized articles, vehicles, and penalty amounts were ordered to be forfeited or disposed of as per legal procedure. 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. 12-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

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

  5. 05-Feb-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 29-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 10-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1106/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court convicted accused Dilipbhai Dudabhai Sondarva under Section 65(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 275 of the IPC, sentencing him to a fine of ₹500 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default). The court considered the accused's claim of being from a poor background and having family responsibilities, finding rehabilitation possible, and imposed a lenient sentence accordingly. All seized articles, vehicles, and penalty amounts were ordered to be forfeited or disposed of as per legal procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case