ASHOK S CHAHAL GUMASTA INSPECTOR vs HARE KRUSHNA COMBIFERAN JIGAR PATEL — 106/2026

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: GJAH070001442026

Filing Number

106/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

106/2026

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.HARE KRUSHNA COMBIFERAN JIGAR PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Dholka Special Sitting Court convicted the accused under Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act Section 7, imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default). Considering the accused's impoverished background, status as sole breadwinner with children, and first-time offense, the court exercised discretion to impose minimum punishment rather than maximum, finding adequate grounds for leniency to enable social rehabilitation and reintegration. 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. 106/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Dholka Special Sitting Court convicted the accused under Gujarat Shops and Establishments Act Section 7, imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default). Considering the accused's impoverished background, status as sole breadwinner with children, and first-time offense, the court exercised discretion to impose minimum punishment rather than maximum, finding adequate grounds for leniency to enable social rehabilitation and reintegration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case