GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs ANIL DEVA MATANG Advocate - K N GAGIYA — 639/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030009362026

Filing Number

639/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

639/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA

Judge

3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

338

Police Station

MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ANIL DEVA MATANG Advocate - K N GAGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Mundra Court acquitted the accused of a narcotic drugs offense under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(a)(a), accepting his voluntary plea of guilt. Considering the accused's poor economic background, family circumstances, first-time offense, and the reformative theory of punishment, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine with 15 days' simple imprisonment as default, rather than maximum punishment, finding that justice would be served through this approach. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 639/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Mundra Court acquitted the accused of a narcotic drugs offense under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(a)(a), accepting his voluntary plea of guilt. Considering the accused's poor economic background, family circumstances, first-time offense, and the reformative theory of punishment, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine with 15 days' simple imprisonment as default, rather than maximum punishment, finding that justice would be served through this approach. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case