THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DILIPBHAI BABUBHAI DHARMAVAT — 426/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK130004772026

Filing Number

426/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

426/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT-DANTIWADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

56

Police Station

PANTHAWADA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DILIPBHAI BABUBHAI DHARMAVAT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court convicted the accused Dilipbhai Babubhai Dhrmavat under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Section 66(1)(b) for committing an offense against a child. Considering the accused's first-time offense, poor financial condition, family dependence, and genuine remorse demonstrated through his confession, the court imposed a lenient sentence of a fine of ₹200 instead of the minimum imprisonment, coupled with six months probation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 426/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Dilipbhai Babubhai Dhrmavat under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Section 66(1)(b) for committing an offense against a child. Considering the accused's first-time offense, poor financial condition, family dependence, and genuine remorse demonstrated through his confession, the court imposed a lenient sentence of a fine of ₹200 instead of the minimum imprisonment, coupled with six months probation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case