GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, GONDAL CITY P.S. vs UMESHBHAI KANTIBHAI DABHI — 344/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJRJ040006752026

Filing Number

344/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

344/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, GONDAL

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11213015251037

Police Station

GONDAL CITY POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, GONDAL CITY P.S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UMESHBHAI KANTIBHAI DABHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused Umeshbhai Kantibhai Dabhi guilty under Section 65(A)(A) of the Prohibition Act after he confessed to the charges. Considering mitigating factors including his first offense, remorse, and poor economic condition, the court imposed a reduced sentence of Rs. 100 fine (or 7 days imprisonment in default) instead of the statutory minimum punishment, citing precedent that allows courts discretion to impose lesser sentences when justified by 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. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 344/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused Umeshbhai Kantibhai Dabhi guilty under Section 65(A)(A) of the Prohibition Act after he confessed to the charges. Considering mitigating factors including his first offense, remorse, and poor economic condition, the court imposed a reduced sentence of Rs. 100 fine (or 7 days imprisonment in default) instead of the statutory minimum punishment, citing precedent that allows courts discretion to impose lesser sentences when justified by 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