GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs VIPULBHAI JALUBHAI DEVIPUJAK Advocate - K N GAGIYA — 647/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030009442026

Filing Number

647/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

647/2026

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

345

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.VIPULBHAI JALUBHAI DEVIPUJAK Advocate - K N GAGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary The court found the accused guilty of committing an offense under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and sentenced him to acquittal with a fine of Rs. 100, or 15 days simple imprisonment in default. Applying the reformative theory of punishment and considering the accused's voluntary confession, poverty, and family circumstances, the court deemed that lenient sentencing would serve the interests of justice. 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. 647/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court found the accused guilty of committing an offense under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and sentenced him to acquittal with a fine of Rs. 100, or 15 days simple imprisonment in default. Applying the reformative theory of punishment and considering the accused's voluntary confession, poverty, and family circumstances, the court deemed that lenient sentencing would serve the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case