STATE OF GUJARAT vs BANUBEN SONUBHAI VADU Advocate - J V GAMIT — 54/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNV130000652026

Filing Number

54/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

54/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUBIR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11219003250360

Police Station

SUBIR POLICE STATION - DANG DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BANUBEN SONUBHAI VADU Advocate - J V GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under Section 65(A)(A) of the Probation Act for a crime involving obscene material, imposing a fine of Rs. 200/- (two hundred rupees) and simple imprisonment for two days as punishment. The court reduced the statutory sentence considering the accused's poor financial condition, being the sole earner in his family, while noting that his voluntary confession and personal circumstances warranted a lenient sentence to serve the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 54/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under Section 65(A)(A) of the Probation Act for a crime involving obscene material, imposing a fine of Rs. 200/- (two hundred rupees) and simple imprisonment for two days as punishment. The court reduced the statutory sentence considering the accused's poor financial condition, being the sole earner in his family, while noting that his voluntary confession and personal circumstances warranted a lenient sentence to serve the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case