THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs GUNVANTBHAI KESHAVLAL PATEL Advocate - M H PATEL — 72/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,409,420,120(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: GJAH010009722024

Filing Number

72/2024

Filing Date

09-Feb-2024

Registration No

72/2024

Registration Date

09-Feb-2024

Court

Ahmedabad District

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 15-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11

Police Station

NARANPURA POLICE STATION- AHMEDABAD CITY

Year

2015

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 406,409,420,120(B)
Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 65,66,66(A)(B)(C)(D)
The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 Section 23(1)(F)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. T P CHUDASAMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GUNVANTBHAI KESHAVLAL PATEL Advocate - M H PATEL

  2. 2.KAMLESH VASUBHAI PATEL

    Adv. M H PATEL

  3. 3.SAHDEVSINH JASHUJI VAGHELA

    Adv. M H PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary of Court Judgment The Ahmednagar District and Sessions Court acquitted three defendants charged with unauthorized securities trading and fraud under IPC sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), Securities Contracts Regulation Act 1956 section 23(1)(f), and Information Technology Act 2000 sections 65-66. The court found insufficient evidence that the accused conducted illegal "bucket shop" trading, misappropriated government tax revenues, or violated SEBI regulations despite confiscating computers and trading records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  8. 23-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  10. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  11. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  12. 28-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  13. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  14. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  15. 31-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  16. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  17. 08-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  18. 31-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  19. 18-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  20. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  21. 27-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  22. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  23. 30-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  24. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  25. 30-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  26. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  27. 04-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  28. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  29. 19-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  30. 16-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  31. 24-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  32. 31-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  33. 30-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  34. 09-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  35. 19-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  36. 01-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  37. 19-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  38. 10-Feb-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  39. 03-Feb-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  40. 20-Dec-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  41. 18-Nov-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  42. 30-Sep-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  43. 28-Aug-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  44. 18-Jul-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  45. 11-Jun-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District Judge

  46. 29-Apr-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Principal District Judge

  47. 11-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  48. 09-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 72/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Court Judgment The Ahmednagar District and Sessions Court acquitted three defendants charged with unauthorized securities trading and fraud under IPC sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), Securities Contracts Regulation Act 1956 section 23(1)(f), and Information Technology Act 2000 sections 65-66. The court found insufficient evidence that the accused conducted illegal "bucket shop" trading, misappropriated government tax revenues, or violated SEBI regulations despite confiscating computers and trading records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case