THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAJUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL — 214/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSK140002512026

Filing Number

214/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

214/2026

Registration Date

11-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, VADALI

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 12-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11209054240260

Police Station

VADALI POLICE STATION - SABARKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Vadodara Special Magistrate Court convicted the accused under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(1) for possessing liquor without a permit. Considering the accused's first-time offense, poor socio-economic background, family responsibilities, and promise of reform, the court imposed lenient punishment of ₹100 fine (or one day simple imprisonment in default) instead of the minimum sentence, citing special and adequate reasons warranting discretionary leniency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Order

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 214/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Vadodara Special Magistrate Court convicted the accused under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(1) for possessing liquor without a permit. Considering the accused's first-time offense, poor socio-economic background, family responsibilities, and promise of reform, the court imposed lenient punishment of ₹100 fine (or one day simple imprisonment in default) instead of the minimum sentence, citing special and adequate reasons warranting discretionary leniency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case