Government of Gujarat vs MANIKCHANDR RAMPRAKASH PRAJAPATI — 1215/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN080017752025

Filing Number

1215/2025

Filing Date

18-Nov-2025

Registration No

1215/2025

Registration Date

18-Nov-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250063

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.MANIKCHANDR RAMPRAKASH PRAJAPATI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused, Manikchandr Ramprakash Prajapati, under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for unlawful possession of alcohol. Considering the accused's socioeconomic circumstances (poverty, family dependence, employment needs), the court imposed a reduced sentence of a fine of ₹100 or, in default, 2 days' simple imprisonment, rather than the maximum prescribed penalty. 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. 12-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 05-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 18-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1215/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused, Manikchandr Ramprakash Prajapati, under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for unlawful possession of alcohol. Considering the accused's socioeconomic circumstances (poverty, family dependence, employment needs), the court imposed a reduced sentence of a fine of ₹100 or, in default, 2 days' simple imprisonment, rather than the maximum prescribed penalty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case