Government of Gujarat vs RASHIKNATH MEGHANATH GOSVAMI — 643/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW020009432026
Filing Number
643/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
643/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT, KHAMBHALIA
Judge
4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT
FIR Details
FIR Number
11185004252007
Police Station
JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
RASHIKNATH MEGHANATH GOSVAMI
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 643/2026 The court convicted respondent Rashiknath Meghanath Goswami under Gujarat Police Act Section 135(1) for unlawful assembly. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charges and requested leniency, citing that this was his first offense and that he was an illiterate laborer with family responsibilities. The court sentenced the respondent to three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300, or in default, two days simple imprisonment. The court considered the respondent's status as a first-time offender and his socioeconomic circumstances while imposing the minimum prescribed sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 643/2026 The court convicted respondent Rashiknath Meghanath Goswami under Gujarat Police Act Section 135(1) for unlawful assembly. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charges and requested leniency, citing that this was his first offense and that he was an illiterate laborer with family responsibilities. The court sentenced the respondent to three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300, or in default, two days simple imprisonment. The court considered the respondent's status as a first-time offender and his socioeconomic circumstances while imposing the minimum prescribed sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts