Government of Gujarat vs SURAJ AKA ANILBHAI SHANTILAL MARVADI — 178/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85(1),66(1)(b). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050003682026

Filing Number

178/2026

Filing Date

10-Feb-2026

Registration No

178/2026

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

458

Police Station

KAPADWANJ TOWN POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85(1),66(1)(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SURAJ AKA ANILBHAI SHANTILAL MARVADI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kapadvanj convicted the accused Suraj Urf Anilbhai under the Gujarat Prohibition Act sections 66.1.B and 85(1) for public intoxication, but imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 cash fine and imprisonment until court rising instead of rigorous punishment, considering the accused's guilty plea, poor economic condition, and family responsibilities. If the fine remains unpaid, the accused will serve 3 days simple imprisonment. 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. 13-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 10-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 178/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kapadvanj convicted the accused Suraj Urf Anilbhai under the Gujarat Prohibition Act sections 66.1.B and 85(1) for public intoxication, but imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 cash fine and imprisonment until court rising instead of rigorous punishment, considering the accused's guilty plea, poor economic condition, and family responsibilities. If the fine remains unpaid, the accused will serve 3 days simple imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case