ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMASTA INSPECTOR vs STOP AND STOP HASHANBHAI — 94/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 Section 7. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAH070001322026

Filing Number

94/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

94/2026

Registration Date

16-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHOLKA

Judge

6-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 Section 7

Petitioner(s)

1.ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMASTA INSPECTOR

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

1.STOP AND STOP HASHANBHAI

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
14-Mar-2026

OrderView PDF

This is a criminal case (Case No. 94/2026) from Dholka, Gujarat, decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate A.N. Munshi. The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act Section 7, finding him guilty of operating a shop without proper license. The court imposed a fine of ₹5,000 with an alternative simple imprisonment of 3 days, considering the accused's poor economic condition, single earning family member, and it being his first offense as mitigating factors for imposing a lenient sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
14-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
11-Mar-2026

Process To Accused

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
06-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
16-Jan-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 94/2026

casestatus.in Summary

This is a criminal case (Case No. 94/2026) from Dholka, Gujarat, decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate A.N. Munshi. The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act Section 7, finding him guilty of operating a shop without proper license. The court imposed a fine of ₹5,000 with an alternative simple imprisonment of 3 days, considering the accused's poor economic condition, single earning family member, and it being his first offense as mitigating factors for imposing a lenient sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.