Government of Gujarat vs MAKWANA HITENDRAKUMAR ALIAS HITESH PARSHOTTAMBHAI KALIDAS Advocate - A A SAIYAD — 389/2026

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: GJMH030006872026

Filing Number

389/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

389/2026

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

11206050250315

Police Station

NANDASAN POLICE STATION - MAHESANA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAKWANA HITENDRAKUMAR ALIAS HITESH PARSHOTTAMBHAI KALIDAS Advocate - A A SAIYAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused Makvana Hitendrakumar guilty of violating the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Considering his poor financial circumstances and status as the sole breadwinner of his family, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 200 fine with three days simple imprisonment in default, rather than the statutory punishment prescribed under law. 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. 389/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused Makvana Hitendrakumar guilty of violating the Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Considering his poor financial circumstances and status as the sole breadwinner of his family, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 200 fine with three days simple imprisonment in default, rather than the statutory punishment prescribed under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case