RUTURAJBHAI JOGABHAI vs SUREKHABEN SANJAYBHAI HALPATI — 693/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNV020008462026

Filing Number

693/2026

Filing Date

17-Jan-2026

Registration No

693/2026

Registration Date

17-Jan-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT, NAVSARI

Judge

8-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RUTURAJBHAI JOGABHAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUREKHABEN SANJAYBHAI HALPATI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Navsari convicted the accused, Surekhabhen Sanjayabhai Halpati, under Section 65(A)(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for possessing contraband liquor without proper permit. The accused voluntarily confessed to the crime in court, which the judge found credible and admissible. Considering the accused's poor economic circumstances, remorse, and the voluntary confession, the court imposed a lenient sentence of a ₹200 fine with an alternative of 3 days simple imprisonment, rather than the mandatory minimum punishment prescribed by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 31-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 17-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 693/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Navsari convicted the accused, Surekhabhen Sanjayabhai Halpati, under Section 65(A)(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for possessing contraband liquor without proper permit. The accused voluntarily confessed to the crime in court, which the judge found credible and admissible. Considering the accused's poor economic circumstances, remorse, and the voluntary confession, the court imposed a lenient sentence of a ₹200 fine with an alternative of 3 days simple imprisonment, rather than the mandatory minimum punishment prescribed 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