ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMASTA INSPECTOR vs BAPASITARAM KIRANA STORE HIMATBHAI RAMESHBHAI — 95/2026

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: GJAH070001332026

Filing Number

95/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

95/2026

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. 1.ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMASTA INSPECTOR

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BAPASITARAM KIRANA STORE HIMATBHAI RAMESHBHAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under the Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act for violating licensing provisions, finding him guilty of operating a store without proper authorization in Dholka municipality area. Considering the accused's poor socioeconomic status, first-time offense, family circumstances with dependent children, and commitment to reform, the court imposed a reduced sentence of ₹5,000 fine (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default) rather than the maximum penalty, applying principles of judicial discretion to balance justice with rehabilitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 95/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under the Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act for violating licensing provisions, finding him guilty of operating a store without proper authorization in Dholka municipality area. Considering the accused's poor socioeconomic status, first-time offense, family circumstances with dependent children, and commitment to reform, the court imposed a reduced sentence of ₹5,000 fine (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default) rather than the maximum penalty, applying principles of judicial discretion to balance justice with rehabilitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case