Government of Gujarat vs SANDIPBHAI SARVATBHAI CHAUDHARI — 302/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP020004262026

e-Filing Number

17-01-2026

Filing Number

302/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

302/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT, VYARA

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

2193

Police Station

VYARA POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANDIPBHAI SARVATBHAI CHAUDHARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for consuming alcohol in public, sentencing him to 6 months imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 (or 7 days additional imprisonment if fine is not paid). The court rejected the accused's plea that this was a first-time offense committed due to economic hardship, holding that voluntary confession of guilt and mitigating circumstances do not negate the offense, though they warrant reduced sentencing under established judicial principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 302/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for consuming alcohol in public, sentencing him to 6 months imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 (or 7 days additional imprisonment if fine is not paid). The court rejected the accused's plea that this was a first-time offense committed due to economic hardship, holding that voluntary confession of guilt and mitigating circumstances do not negate the offense, though they warrant reduced sentencing under established judicial principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case