THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SHYAMBHAI JAYVANTBHAI JANI Advocate - M M SORTHIYA — 756/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN050010872025

Case disposed

Filing Number

756/2025

Filing Date

21-04-2025

Registration No

756/2025

Registration Date

21-04-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA

Judge

3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198035250206

Police Station

MAHUVA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

SHYAMBHAI JAYVANTBHAI JANI Advocate - M M SORTHIYA

Hearing History

Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

14-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

PLEA

09-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

20-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

12-12-2025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

The court convicted Shyambhai Jayvantbhai Jani under Section 56(1)(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and imposed reduced sentences of ₹100 (instead of ₹200) and ₹2,100 (instead of ₹2,100) under different sections, along with three days simple imprisonment as an alternative if fines were not paid. The court exercised leniency considering the accused's poor economic condition, family responsibilities, and adverse impact of imprisonment on his dependents, finding sufficient grounds to impose lesser punishment than the statutory minimum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted Shyambhai Jayvantbhai Jani under Section 56(1)(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and imposed reduced sentences of ₹100 (instead of ₹200) and ₹2,100 (instead of ₹2,100) under different sections, along with three days simple imprisonment as an alternative if fines were not paid. The court exercised leniency considering the accused's poor economic condition, family responsibilities, and adverse impact of imprisonment on his dependents, finding sufficient grounds to impose lesser punishment than the statutory minimum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case