GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs NARAN SUMAR MAHESHWARI Advocate - R S SEDA — 655/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030009522026

Filing Number

655/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

655/2026

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

46

Police Station

MUNDRA MARINE 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.NARAN SUMAR MAHESHWARI Advocate - R S SEDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused of a petty offense under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(A)(A), after the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty. Applying the Reformative Theory of Punishment and considering the accused's poor economic status and family circumstances, the court sentenced him to a fine of ₹100 with 15 days simple imprisonment in default, rather than imposing the maximum punishment, finding that justice would be adequately served. 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. 655/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused of a petty offense under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(A)(A), after the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty. Applying the Reformative Theory of Punishment and considering the accused's poor economic status and family circumstances, the court sentenced him to a fine of ₹100 with 15 days simple imprisonment in default, rather than imposing the maximum punishment, finding that justice would be adequately served. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case