Government of Gujarat vs THAKOR JAGMALJI KANTIJI MERUJI Advocate - A A SAIYAD — 388/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMH030006862026

Filing Number

388/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

388/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KADI

Judge

9-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11206050260069

Police Station

NANDASAN POLICE STATION - MAHESANA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THAKOR JAGMALJI KANTIJI MERUJI Advocate - A A SAIYAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary The Kadi Judicial Magistrate convicted defendant Thakor Jagmalji Kantiji under Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) after he voluntarily confessed to the offense. Considering the defendant's poor economic condition and family responsibilities as the sole earner, the court imposed a reduced sentence of ₹200 fine and three days imprisonment instead of the statutory maximum, citing precedent that lenient sentencing would serve justice in this case. 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. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 388/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Kadi Judicial Magistrate convicted defendant Thakor Jagmalji Kantiji under Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) after he voluntarily confessed to the offense. Considering the defendant's poor economic condition and family responsibilities as the sole earner, the court imposed a reduced sentence of ₹200 fine and three days imprisonment instead of the statutory maximum, citing precedent that lenient sentencing would serve justice in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case