GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs JITUBHA HAKAMSING RATHOD — 3181/2025
Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT030039452025
Filing Number
3181/2025
Filing Date
20-Dec-2025
Registration No
3181/2025
Registration Date
20-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
389
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.JITUBHA HAKAMSING RATHOD
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for unlawful possession of liquor with intent to consume, and sentenced him to a fine of ₹100 with an alternate imprisonment of 15 days, applying the reformative theory of punishment given the accused's poor economic status and family circumstances. The court found the voluntary plea of guilt and mitigating factors sufficient to avoid imposing maximum punishment while serving the ends of justice. 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
-
07-Mar-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
24-Feb-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
10-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3181/2025
The court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for unlawful possession of liquor with intent to consume, and sentenced him to a fine of ₹100 with an alternate imprisonment of 15 days, applying the reformative theory of punishment given the accused's poor economic status and family circumstances. The court found the voluntary plea of guilt and mitigating factors sufficient to avoid imposing maximum punishment while serving the ends of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts