Government of Gujarat vs JAYESHBHAI RANJITBHAI GAMIT Advocate - M T GAMIT — 911/2026

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: GJTP060009872026

Filing Number

911/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

911/2026

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

11824004252861

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.JAYESHBHAI RANJITBHAI GAMIT Advocate - M T GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused guilty under Section 275(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for selling liquor to a minor and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500, with an alternative imprisonment of 6 days if the fine is not paid. The court exercised leniency considering the accused's poverty, family responsibilities, and the reformative purpose of law, while upholding the conviction. 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. 11-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 911/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused guilty under Section 275(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for selling liquor to a minor and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500, with an alternative imprisonment of 6 days if the fine is not paid. The court exercised leniency considering the accused's poverty, family responsibilities, and the reformative purpose of law, while upholding the conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case