Government of Gujarat vs RAJESH MADHU KOLI — 4301/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT020073412025

Filing Number

4301/2025

Filing Date

21-Aug-2025

Registration No

4301/2025

Registration Date

21-Aug-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT BHUJ

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11205039250332

Police Station

BHUJ TALUKA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJESH MADHU KOLI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Gujarat High Court convicted the accused under Section 65(f) of the Prohibition Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default), considering it his first offense and absence of criminal history. The court, relying on the accused's plea of guilty and the defense counsel's submissions, exercised discretion to impose the minimum prescribed sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  6. 10-Nov-2025

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  7. 22-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 21-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4301/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court convicted the accused under Section 65(f) of the Prohibition Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default), considering it his first offense and absence of criminal history. The court, relying on the accused's plea of guilty and the defense counsel's submissions, exercised discretion to impose the minimum prescribed sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case