Government of Gujarat vs SUMANBHAI KARANSINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - R M AHIRE — 873/2026

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: GJTP060009482026

Filing Number

873/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

873/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SONGADH

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

11824004253009

Police Station

SONGADH POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUMANBHAI KARANSINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - R M AHIRE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court granted the accused's plea bargaining petition under IPC Section 290 and CrPC Section 265C, allowing the accused to be convicted without admitting guilt—maintaining innocence while consenting to conviction. The court sentenced the accused to six months imprisonment and a fine of ₹500, considering the accused's age, conduct, and socio-economic circumstances, while noting the crime did not constitute a serious offense and the victim was an adult. 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

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 873/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted the accused's plea bargaining petition under IPC Section 290 and CrPC Section 265C, allowing the accused to be convicted without admitting guilt—maintaining innocence while consenting to conviction. The court sentenced the accused to six months imprisonment and a fine of ₹500, considering the accused's age, conduct, and socio-economic circumstances, while noting the crime did not constitute a serious offense and the victim was an adult. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case