State of Gujarat vs KARSHANBHAI VEJABHAI CHANDPA — 2136/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185,. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS020032622025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2136/2025
Filing Date
08-08-2025
Registration No
2136/2025
Registration Date
08-08-2025
Court
Civil Court, Veraval
Judge
15-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
FIR Details
FIR Number
11186009241064
Police Station
VERAVAL POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KARSHANBHAI VEJABHAI CHANDPA
Hearing History
Judge: 15-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
WARRANT OF ARREST
WARRANT OF ARREST
WARRANT OF ARREST
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 17-02-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST | |
| 05-01-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST | |
| 17-11-2025 | WARRANT OF ARREST |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court found the accused, Karshnbhai Vejabhai Chandpa, guilty of offenses under Section 66(1)B of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly CrPC Section 66(1)B) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Considering the accused's financial condition, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine for the first offense and Rs. 1,000 for the second offense (totaling Rs. 1,100), with one day simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. The court applied its discretionary authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory minimum based on special and adequate reasons related to the accused's circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court found the accused, Karshnbhai Vejabhai Chandpa, guilty of offenses under Section 66(1)B of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly CrPC Section 66(1)B) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Considering the accused's financial condition, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine for the first offense and Rs. 1,000 for the second offense (totaling Rs. 1,100), with one day simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. The court applied its discretionary authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory minimum based on special and adequate reasons related to the accused's circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts