GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs JITENDRA URFE JITU KANJIBHAI MAHESHWARI — 3146/2025
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT030039062025
Filing Number
3146/2025
Filing Date
18-Dec-2025
Registration No
3146/2025
Registration Date
18-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA
Judge
5-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
Last updated 21-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
302
Police Station
MUNDRA MARINE POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.JITENDRA URFE JITU KANJIBHAI MAHESHWARI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court acquitted the accused of the offense under Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b) (illicit liquor production), accepting the accused's voluntary plea of guilt and considering reformative principles of punishment. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of Rs. 100 with 15 days simple imprisonment as an alternative, recognizing that the accused is a poor person and sole earner in his family. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Mar-2026
Lok Adalat
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
11-Mar-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
02-Mar-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
21-Feb-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
09-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3146/2025
The court acquitted the accused of the offense under Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b) (illicit liquor production), accepting the accused's voluntary plea of guilt and considering reformative principles of punishment. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of Rs. 100 with 15 days simple imprisonment as an alternative, recognizing that the accused is a poor person and sole earner in his family. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts