GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs DHARMESHBHAI JETHABHAI CHAVDA Advocate - K N GAGIYA — 644/2026

Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030009412026

Filing Number

644/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

644/2026

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

342

Police Station

MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DHARMESHBHAI JETHABHAI CHAVDA Advocate - K N GAGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary The court convicted the accused of a petty offense under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act based on his voluntary plea of guilty. Applying the reformative theory of punishment and considering the accused's poverty, family circumstances, and lack of prior record, the court acquitted him rather than impose minimum or maximum punishment, finding that justice would be served. The accused was discharged on probation with a fine of ₹100 or 15 days simple imprisonment in default, with his bail bond continuing. 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. 644/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court convicted the accused of a petty offense under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act based on his voluntary plea of guilty. Applying the reformative theory of punishment and considering the accused's poverty, family circumstances, and lack of prior record, the court acquitted him rather than impose minimum or maximum punishment, finding that justice would be served. The accused was discharged on probation with a fine of ₹100 or 15 days simple imprisonment in default, with his bail bond continuing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case