Government of Gujarat vs SHANKARBHAI RAMESHBHAI PARMAR — 422/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR050005892026

Filing Number

422/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

422/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-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.SHANKARBHAI RAMESHBHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary: The court found the accused guilty under Section 65 AA of the Prohibition Act based on their voluntary confession. Considering the accused's remorse, voluntary plea, and assurance of future good conduct, the court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment till court closure and a fine of Rs. 200, departing from the minimum statutory punishment to provide the accused an opportunity for reformation. Seized valuable items were ordered to be returned to their rightful owner or forfeited to the government as per procedure. 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

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 422/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court found the accused guilty under Section 65 AA of the Prohibition Act based on their voluntary confession. Considering the accused's remorse, voluntary plea, and assurance of future good conduct, the court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment till court closure and a fine of Rs. 200, departing from the minimum statutory punishment to provide the accused an opportunity for reformation. Seized valuable items were ordered to be returned to their rightful owner or forfeited to the government as per procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case