Government of Gujarat vs RAMESHBHAI VECHANBHAI VASAVA — 172/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR050003122026

Filing Number

172/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

172/2026

Registration Date

18-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANGROL

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 22-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65aa

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMESHBHAI VECHANBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary The court convicted the accused under Section 65 AA of the Prohibition Act after the accused voluntarily confessed to the crime and expressed remorse. Citing the principle that lesser punishment is justified when there are sufficient reasons and considering the accused's voluntary confession and commitment to reform, the court sentenced the accused to imprisonment until rising of court and imposed a fine of Rs. 200, with one day simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. Seized valuable items were ordered to be returned to their rightful owner or forfeited to the government as per regulations. 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. 06-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 172/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court convicted the accused under Section 65 AA of the Prohibition Act after the accused voluntarily confessed to the crime and expressed remorse. Citing the principle that lesser punishment is justified when there are sufficient reasons and considering the accused's voluntary confession and commitment to reform, the court sentenced the accused to imprisonment until rising of court and imposed a fine of Rs. 200, with one day simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. Seized valuable items were ordered to be returned to their rightful owner or forfeited to the government as per regulations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case