Government of Gujarat vs SANJAYBHAI BHUPATBHAI DHANDHANIYA — 690/2026

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: GJMR020008302026

Filing Number

690/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

690/2026

Registration Date

30-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 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

2847

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.SANJAYBHAI BHUPATBHAI DHANDHANIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence of an accused convicted under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65AA, considering extenuating circumstances including his poor background, family responsibilities, and it being his first offense. The court reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200 with 7 days imprisonment in default, finding that the lower court had failed to consider these mitigating factors as required by law. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    Order

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

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 690/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence of an accused convicted under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65AA, considering extenuating circumstances including his poor background, family responsibilities, and it being his first offense. The court reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200 with 7 days imprisonment in default, finding that the lower court had failed to consider these mitigating factors as required by 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