Government of Gujarat vs RAVAL SONALBEN DALAPATBHAI DHULABHAI — 502/2026

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

Case disposedSub Stage

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPT060006172026

Filing Number

502/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

502/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SIDHPUR

Judge

3-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11217030251216

Police Station

SIDHPUR POLICE STATION - PATAN DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVAL SONALBEN DALAPATBHAI DHULABHAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Gujarat High Court held that trial courts possess discretionary power to impose sentences below the statutory minimum for first offenses when "special and adequate reasons" are recorded in the judgment, rejecting the State's contention of absolute mandatory minimum sentencing. The court clarified that plea of guilty and plea bargaining are distinct concepts, and no prescribed format can supersede statutory procedures under the Bombay Prohibition Act; discretionary sentencing authority must be exercised judicially based on documented special circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 502/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court held that trial courts possess discretionary power to impose sentences below the statutory minimum for first offenses when "special and adequate reasons" are recorded in the judgment, rejecting the State's contention of absolute mandatory minimum sentencing. The court clarified that plea of guilty and plea bargaining are distinct concepts, and no prescribed format can supersede statutory procedures under the Bombay Prohibition Act; discretionary sentencing authority must be exercised judicially based on documented special circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case