Government of Gujarat vs KANUBHAI AMBALAL PARMAR Advocate - M B RAJPUT — 168/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050003582026

Filing Number

168/2026

Filing Date

10-Feb-2026

Registration No

168/2026

Registration Date

10-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KAPADVANJ

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

390

Police Station

KAPADWANJ TOWN POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KANUBHAI AMBALAL PARMAR Advocate - M B RAJPUT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused, Kanubhai Ambalal Parmar, guilty under Section 65A of the Prohibition Act for illegal possession of 0.3 liters of country liquor worth ₹60. Considering the accused's confession, poor financial condition, and family circumstances, the court imposed lenient punishment: a fine of ₹100 with imprisonment until court rising, and an alternative sentence of 2 days simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 168/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused, Kanubhai Ambalal Parmar, guilty under Section 65A of the Prohibition Act for illegal possession of 0.3 liters of country liquor worth ₹60. Considering the accused's confession, poor financial condition, and family circumstances, the court imposed lenient punishment: a fine of ₹100 with imprisonment until court rising, and an alternative sentence of 2 days simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case