Government of Gujarat vs CHANDRASHEKHAR CHALITAR SADAY — 441/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMR020005462026

Filing Number

441/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

441/2026

Registration Date

21-Jan-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT, MORBI

Judge

3-2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1854

Police Station

MORBI TALUKA POLICE STATION - MORBI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRASHEKHAR CHALITAR SADAY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence of an accused convicted under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, reducing the imprisonment term while maintaining a fine of Rs. 250, considering extenuating circumstances such as the accused's first-time offense, poor economic background, and family responsibilities that the trial court had failed to consider. The court held that courts can impose lenient sentences based on genuine mitigating factors, and that setting a precedent for sentence reduction is not a valid reason to ignore an accused's legitimate circumstances when dispensing justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Order

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 441/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence of an accused convicted under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, reducing the imprisonment term while maintaining a fine of Rs. 250, considering extenuating circumstances such as the accused's first-time offense, poor economic background, and family responsibilities that the trial court had failed to consider. The court held that courts can impose lenient sentences based on genuine mitigating factors, and that setting a precedent for sentence reduction is not a valid reason to ignore an accused's legitimate circumstances when dispensing justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case