Government of Gujarat vs Suraj Tarunbhai Kanaiya Advocate - D M VAGHELA — 655/2026

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: GJRJ050009262026

Filing Number

655/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

655/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, JETPUR

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11213096260177

Police Station

JETPUR UDHYOG NAGAR POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Suraj Tarunbhai Kanaiya Advocate - D M VAGHELA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary In Criminal Case No. 655/2026, the Jetpur Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the accused Suraj (also known as Tako) Tarunbhai Kanhaiya under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court, considering it his first offense, his role as the sole breadwinner of his family, and his promise of reformation, sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 with simple imprisonment until the fine is paid (2 days if unpaid). 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. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 655/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary In Criminal Case No. 655/2026, the Jetpur Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the accused Suraj (also known as Tako) Tarunbhai Kanhaiya under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court, considering it his first offense, his role as the sole breadwinner of his family, and his promise of reformation, sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 with simple imprisonment until the fine is paid (2 days if unpaid). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case