Government of Gujarat vs KIRANBHAI MOTIRAMBHAI VASAVA — 103/2026

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: GJNR040001192026

e-Filing Number

19-09-2025

Filing Number

103/2026

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Registration No

103/2026

Registration Date

22-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEDIAPADA

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11823004251108

Police Station

DEDIAPADA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KIRANBHAI MOTIRAMBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Dediyapada court sentenced the accused to imprisonment of Rs. 200 (or 5 days simple imprisonment in default) under IPC Section 294(1) for using obscene language in public, considering it was the accused's first offense, his poor economic background, and his express remorse and promise not to repeat such conduct. The court applied lenient sentencing principles by imposing a lighter punishment than the statutory maximum, balancing justice with the accused's rehabilitation prospects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 03-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 103/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Dediyapada court sentenced the accused to imprisonment of Rs. 200 (or 5 days simple imprisonment in default) under IPC Section 294(1) for using obscene language in public, considering it was the accused's first offense, his poor economic background, and his express remorse and promise not to repeat such conduct. The court applied lenient sentencing principles by imposing a lighter punishment than the statutory maximum, balancing justice with the accused's rehabilitation prospects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case