Government of Gujarat vs GOVINDBHAI PRATAPBHAI SOLANKI — 314/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050005772026

Filing Number

314/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

314/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KAPADVANJ

Judge

5-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

14

Police Station

ATTARSUMBA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOVINDBHAI PRATAPBHAI SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court found the accused, Govindbhai Pratapbhai Solanki, guilty under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for possessing approximately 2 liters of illicit liquor worth ₹400 on January 25, 2026. The accused confessed to the crime in court and pleaded for leniency citing his poor economic status and family responsibilities. The court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹200 fine and simple imprisonment until the court rises, following judicial precedent that favors reduced punishment in such cases, rather than imposing the full statutory penalty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 314/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court found the accused, Govindbhai Pratapbhai Solanki, guilty under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) for possessing approximately 2 liters of illicit liquor worth ₹400 on January 25, 2026. The accused confessed to the crime in court and pleaded for leniency citing his poor economic status and family responsibilities. The court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹200 fine and simple imprisonment until the court rises, following judicial precedent that favors reduced punishment in such cases, rather than imposing the full statutory 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