GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs DHARMENDRASINH MAHIPARSINH JADEJA Advocate - P T GORADIYA — 653/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030009502026

Filing Number

653/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

653/2026

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

21

Police Station

MUNDRA MARINE 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.DHARMENDRASINH MAHIPARSINH JADEJA Advocate - P T GORADIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for unlawful possession of contraband and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 with an alternative imprisonment of 15 days, applying reformative principles of punishment considering the accused's poor economic status and family circumstances. The judgment, dated March 14, 2026, emphasized that justice could be served through acquittal rather than harsh punishment, and the bail granted during trial proceedings was ordered to remain valid. 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. 653/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for unlawful possession of contraband and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 with an alternative imprisonment of 15 days, applying reformative principles of punishment considering the accused's poor economic status and family circumstances. The judgment, dated March 14, 2026, emphasized that justice could be served through acquittal rather than harsh punishment, and the bail granted during trial proceedings was ordered to remain valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case