Government of Gujarat vs RAJESHBHAI SARMANBHAI KARNGIYA — 1112/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65,A,A. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN080016602025

Filing Number

1112/2025

Filing Date

10-Nov-2025

Registration No

1112/2025

Registration Date

10-Nov-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

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

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030240275

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJESHBHAI SARMANBHAI KARNGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Order

    The court convicted respondent Rajeshbhai Sarmanbhai Karngiya under Section 65(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 275 BNP Act, sentencing him to a fine of ₹500 (with six-month simple imprisonment as default), and ordered forfeiture of seized valuables, vehicles, and penalty amounts to the government. The court found the accused guilty based on his confession and circumstances, while granting him the opportunity for reformation as a mitigating factor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-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. 1112/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted respondent Rajeshbhai Sarmanbhai Karngiya under Section 65(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 275 BNP Act, sentencing him to a fine of ₹500 (with six-month simple imprisonment as default), and ordered forfeiture of seized valuables, vehicles, and penalty amounts to the government. The court found the accused guilty based on his confession and circumstances, while granting him the opportunity for reformation as a mitigating factor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case