Government of Gujarat vs REKHABEN LALITBHAI VAGHORA — 8786/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMR020108302025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
8786/2025
Filing Date
11-11-2025
Registration No
8786/2025
Registration Date
11-11-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT, MORBI
Judge
3-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
FIR Details
FIR Number
1173
Police Station
MORBI A DIV POLICE STATION- MORBI DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
REKHABEN LALITBHAI VAGHORA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M.
Disposed
ORDER
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 28-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 12-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 28-11-2025 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence of an accused convicted under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, reducing the punishment from three months imprisonment and ₹200 fine to a fine of ₹250 only. The court held that since the accused had voluntarily pleaded guilty and presented genuine extenuating circumstances (being from a poor background, sole family earner, and first-time offender with no likelihood of recurrence), the lower court's failure to consider these factors warranted sentence reduction in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Gujarat High Court modified the sentence of an accused convicted under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, reducing the punishment from three months imprisonment and ₹200 fine to a fine of ₹250 only. The court held that since the accused had voluntarily pleaded guilty and presented genuine extenuating circumstances (being from a poor background, sole family earner, and first-time offender with no likelihood of recurrence), the lower court's failure to consider these factors warranted sentence reduction in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts