GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs NITIN KAKUBHAI RAJPUT Advocate - K N GAGIYA — 645/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030009422026

Filing Number

645/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

645/2026

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

343

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.NITIN KAKUBHAI RAJPUT Advocate - K N GAGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for a petty drug offense, accepting his voluntary plea. Applying the reformative theory of punishment and considering the accused's poverty and status as a sole earner, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine (or 15 days simple imprisonment in default) rather than the minimum mandatory punishment, finding that justice would be served without inflicting the minimum sentence. 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. 645/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for a petty drug offense, accepting his voluntary plea. Applying the reformative theory of punishment and considering the accused's poverty and status as a sole earner, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine (or 15 days simple imprisonment in default) rather than the minimum mandatory punishment, finding that justice would be served without inflicting the minimum 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