Government of Gujarat vs VINODBHAI AMRUTLAL KATHAD Advocate - M D GOHIL — 1186/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN080017432025

Filing Number

1186/2025

Filing Date

15-Nov-2025

Registration No

1186/2025

Registration Date

15-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

11203030250392

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VINODBHAI AMRUTLAL KATHAD Advocate - M D GOHIL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted accused Vinod Amrutlal Kathad under IPC Section 275 (related to adulterated drugs) and the Bombay Prevention Act Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to a fine of ₹100.50 or two days simple imprisonment in default. The court considered the accused's socioeconomic status, family responsibilities, and plea for reformation while imposing the sentence, deeming rehabilitation appropriate in this case. 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. 06-Feb-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 01-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 15-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1186/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted accused Vinod Amrutlal Kathad under IPC Section 275 (related to adulterated drugs) and the Bombay Prevention Act Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to a fine of ₹100.50 or two days simple imprisonment in default. The court considered the accused's socioeconomic status, family responsibilities, and plea for reformation while imposing the sentence, deeming rehabilitation appropriate in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case