Government of Gujarat vs SUNILBHAI AVACHARBHAI BARAIYA — 442/2026

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: GJMR020005472026

Filing Number

442/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

442/2026

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

1825

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.SUNILBHAI AVACHARBHAI BARAIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence imposed on the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65AA, reducing it in the interest of justice. The court held that the trial judge failed to consider relevant extenuating circumstances (the accused's first offense, poor economic background, and commitment not to reoffend), and relying on precedent, modified the sentence to a fine of ₹250 instead of imprisonment, while maintaining the vehicle forfeiture order. 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. 442/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence imposed on the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65AA, reducing it in the interest of justice. The court held that the trial judge failed to consider relevant extenuating circumstances (the accused's first offense, poor economic background, and commitment not to reoffend), and relying on precedent, modified the sentence to a fine of ₹250 instead of imprisonment, while maintaining the vehicle forfeiture order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case