Government of Gujarat vs Jagubhai Nankubhai Dangar Advocate - D M VAGHELA — 657/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJRJ050009282026

Filing Number

657/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

657/2026

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

11213022260158

Police Station

JETPUR CITY POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Jagubhai Nankubhai Dangar Advocate - D M VAGHELA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Jetpur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court found the defendant Jagubhai Nankubhai Dangar guilty under Section 65(A)(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegal possession of country liquor. Considering the defendant's poverty, remorse, guilty plea, and lack of prior criminal intent, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 200 fine (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default) instead of the statutory minimum punishment, giving the defendant an opportunity for reformation. 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. 657/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Jetpur First Class Judicial Magistrate Court found the defendant Jagubhai Nankubhai Dangar guilty under Section 65(A)(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for illegal possession of country liquor. Considering the defendant's poverty, remorse, guilty plea, and lack of prior criminal intent, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 200 fine (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default) instead of the statutory minimum punishment, giving the defendant an opportunity for reformation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case