Government of Gujarat vs HEMABHAI MUKESHBHAI RATHOD — 590/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR070006712026

e-Filing Number

11-02-2026

Filing Number

590/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

590/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, BARDOLI

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11214008260036

Police Station

BARDOLI POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HEMABHAI MUKESHBHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Gujarat Prohibition (Amended) Act, 2017, Section 65(A)(A), based on the accused's voluntary plea of guilt. The court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for 3 days and imposed a fine of Rs. 100, with the sentence being reduced below the minimum prescribed penalty in light of the accused's economic, social, and family circumstances, following the principle of proportionality of sentence. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 590/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Gujarat Prohibition (Amended) Act, 2017, Section 65(A)(A), based on the accused's voluntary plea of guilt. The court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for 3 days and imposed a fine of Rs. 100, with the sentence being reduced below the minimum prescribed penalty in light of the accused's economic, social, and family circumstances, following the principle of proportionality of sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case