Government of Gujarat vs SHAILESHBHAI MANGADBHAI PARMAR Advocate - P V CHAUHAN — 253/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050004802026

Filing Number

253/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

253/2026

Registration Date

16-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

537

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.SHAILESHBHAI MANGADBHAI PARMAR Advocate - P V CHAUHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused guilty under the Prohibition Act section 65-A for possessing approximately 500 ml of illicit liquor valued at ₹100. Considering the accused's admission of guilt, poor financial circumstances, and family responsibilities, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 cash fine and imprisonment until the rising of court, 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. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 253/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused guilty under the Prohibition Act section 65-A for possessing approximately 500 ml of illicit liquor valued at ₹100. Considering the accused's admission of guilt, poor financial circumstances, and family responsibilities, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 cash fine and imprisonment until the rising of court, 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

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case