Government of Gujarat vs RAKESHBHAI DAHYABHAI RATHOD — 2464/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP030027582025

Filing Number

2464/2025

Filing Date

19-Dec-2025

Registration No

2464/2025

Registration Date

19-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, VALOD

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11824002251448

Police Station

VALOD POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAKESHBHAI DAHYABHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The Vadodra Civil Court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act, but instead of imposing the minimum sentence of six months imprisonment or ₹10,000 fine, imposed a lenient sentence of only ₹50 fine considering the accused's first-time offense, family dependence, remorse, and other mitigating circumstances per established precedent. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 09-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 15-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 19-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 19-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2464/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Vadodra Civil Court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act, but instead of imposing the minimum sentence of six months imprisonment or ₹10,000 fine, imposed a lenient sentence of only ₹50 fine considering the accused's first-time offense, family dependence, remorse, and other mitigating circumstances per established precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case