GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs MAHESH KALIDAS CHUDASMA (PLEAD GUILTY) — 311330/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 Section 12. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH223348132025
Filing Number
305681/2025
Filing Date
22-Sep-2025
Registration No
311330/2025
Registration Date
22-Sep-2025
Court
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11191042240188
Police Station
SATELLITE POLICE STATION- AHMEDABAD CITY
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MAHESH KALIDAS CHUDASMA (PLEAD GUILTY)
-
2.ARVINDBHAI DEVJIBHAI MAKWANA (PLEAD GUILTY)
-
3.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL MAKWANA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court ordered proceedings against the accused to be stayed pending their arrest, as two accused (Mahesh Kalidas Chudasma and Arvindbhai Devjibhai Makwana) pleaded guilty while the third accused (Hasmukhbhai Ambalal Makwana) remained absent despite multiple process issuances. The court found that prolonged pendency caused by police's failure to effectively serve summons and locate the absconding accused was unjustified, and directed the issuance of a warrant to secure the third accused's presence before proceeding further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 311330/2025
The court ordered proceedings against the accused to be stayed pending their arrest, as two accused (Mahesh Kalidas Chudasma and Arvindbhai Devjibhai Makwana) pleaded guilty while the third accused (Hasmukhbhai Ambalal Makwana) remained absent despite multiple process issuances. The court found that prolonged pendency caused by police's failure to effectively serve summons and locate the absconding accused was unjustified, and directed the issuance of a warrant to secure the third accused's presence before proceeding further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts