GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs HANUBHA VELUBHA RATHOD Advocate - P T GORADIYA — 2768/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030034542025

Filing Number

2768/2025

Filing Date

13-Nov-2025

Registration No

2768/2025

Registration Date

13-Nov-2025

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

0316

Police Station

MUNDRA MARINE POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2025

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.HANUBHA VELUBHA RATHOD Advocate - P T GORADIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under Section 65(a)(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 for possessing illicit liquor, accepting the accused's voluntary plea of guilt. Applying reformative punishment principles 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 as default punishment, while allowing the bail granted during trial 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

    Order

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 12-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 13-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2768/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under Section 65(a)(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 for possessing illicit liquor, accepting the accused's voluntary plea of guilt. Applying reformative punishment principles 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 as default punishment, while allowing the bail granted during trial 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