Government of Gujarat vs JAYESHKUMAR KARANSINH ZALA — 316/2026

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: GJKH050005792026

Filing Number

316/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

316/2026

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

10

Police Station

ATTARSUMBA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2026

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.JAYESHKUMAR KARANSINH ZALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused, Jayeshkumar Karansinh Jhala, guilty under the Prohibition Act sections 85(1) and 66(1)(B) for consuming alcohol without a permit in a public place. Considering the accused's plea of guilty, poor economic circumstances as a sole breadwinner, expression of remorse, and commitment to reform, the court sentenced him to a lenient punishment of Rs. 200 fine and imprisonment till the court rises, with an additional provision of one day's 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

    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. 316/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused, Jayeshkumar Karansinh Jhala, guilty under the Prohibition Act sections 85(1) and 66(1)(B) for consuming alcohol without a permit in a public place. Considering the accused's plea of guilty, poor economic circumstances as a sole breadwinner, expression of remorse, and commitment to reform, the court sentenced him to a lenient punishment of Rs. 200 fine and imprisonment till the court rises, with an additional provision of one day's 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