Government of Gujarat vs Yogeshbhai Rameshbhai Kidiya Advocate - U A SONDARVA — 658/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJRJ050009292026

Filing Number

658/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

658/2026

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

11213022260142

Police Station

JETPUR CITY POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Yogeshbhai Rameshbhai Kidiya Advocate - U A SONDARVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused Yogeshbhai Rameshbhai Kidiyan under sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for possessing alcohol without a permit, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default) considering his impoverished background and prospect for reformation. The court applied the principle that minimum sentences can be reduced below statutory minimums when circumstances warrant leniency and rehabilitation. 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. 658/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Yogeshbhai Rameshbhai Kidiyan under sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for possessing alcohol without a permit, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default) considering his impoverished background and prospect for reformation. The court applied the principle that minimum sentences can be reduced below statutory minimums when circumstances warrant leniency and rehabilitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case