Government of Gujarat vs KANTIBHAI AMBALAL PARMAR — 171/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050003612026

Filing Number

171/2026

Filing Date

10-Feb-2026

Registration No

171/2026

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

398

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.KANTIBHAI AMBALAL PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court found the accused, Kanthibhai Ambalal Parmar, guilty under Section 65-A of the Prohibition Act for possessing approximately 0.4 liters of country liquor valued at ₹800 without permission. Instead of imposing rigorous imprisonment, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 cash fine and imprisonment until court rising, considering the accused's confession, poor financial condition, and family responsibilities, with an alternative 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. 171/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused, Kanthibhai Ambalal Parmar, guilty under Section 65-A of the Prohibition Act for possessing approximately 0.4 liters of country liquor valued at ₹800 without permission. Instead of imposing rigorous imprisonment, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 cash fine and imprisonment until court rising, considering the accused's confession, poor financial condition, and family responsibilities, with an alternative 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