GOV. OF GUJARAT vs ASHOKBHAI SHANTILAL KABIRA VANJARA Advocate - K F VASAVA — 803/2025
Case under Copyright Act, 1957 Section 51,63. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 29th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH130008982025
Filing Number
803/2025
Filing Date
24-Jul-2025
Registration No
803/2025
Registration Date
24-Jul-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, NETRANG
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
29-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 22-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199005231070
Police Station
NETRANG POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOV. OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.ASHOKBHAI SHANTILAL KABIRA VANJARA Advocate - K F VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
29-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary of Case 803/2025 The court acquitted Ashokbhai Shantilal Kabira Vanjara of copyright infringement charges under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 51 and 63, finding insufficient evidence that he knowingly infringed copyright. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish all essential elements of the offense, particularly that the respondent acted with knowledge and intent, and therefore imposed no conviction or sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
29-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
01-Oct-2025
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 803/2025
Summary of Case 803/2025 The court acquitted Ashokbhai Shantilal Kabira Vanjara of copyright infringement charges under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 51 and 63, finding insufficient evidence that he knowingly infringed copyright. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish all essential elements of the offense, particularly that the respondent acted with knowledge and intent, and therefore imposed no conviction or sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts