Government of Gujarat vs MANU JUMA PARMAR — 10/2026

Case under Public Gambling Act, 1867 [Section 1 18] Section 12. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020000172026

Filing Number

10/2026

Filing Date

02-Jan-2026

Registration No

10/2026

Registration Date

02-Jan-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT, KHAMBHALIA

Judge

4-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11185007250320

Police Station

SALAYA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Public Gambling Act, 1867 [Section 1 18] Section 12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANU JUMA PARMAR

  2. 2.BACHU BAHADUR PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary of Case 10/2026 The court convicted Manu Juma Parmar and Bachu Bahadur Parmar under IPC Section 275 (Adulteration of Foodstuff) for possessing adulterated sugar at a public place. The defendants voluntarily confessed to the offense and provided truthful statements. Considering their status as economically disadvantaged laborers, first-time offenders, family responsibilities, and mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a reduced sentence: each defendant fined ₹300 with alternate 5-day imprisonment if fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 02-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 02-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 10/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 10/2026 The court convicted Manu Juma Parmar and Bachu Bahadur Parmar under IPC Section 275 (Adulteration of Foodstuff) for possessing adulterated sugar at a public place. The defendants voluntarily confessed to the offense and provided truthful statements. Considering their status as economically disadvantaged laborers, first-time offenders, family responsibilities, and mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a reduced sentence: each defendant fined ₹300 with alternate 5-day imprisonment if fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case