Government of Gujarat vs FATEMABEN W/O MUSABHAI ISHAKBHAI MATAVA — 3501/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 Section 12. Status: PROCESS TO ACCUSED. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN020058172025

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Next Hearing

18th June 2026

Filing Number

3501/2025

Filing Date

29-07-2025

Registration No

3501/2025

Registration Date

29-07-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT JUNAGADH

Judge

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

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203004250285

Police Station

JUNAGADH C DIVISION POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PREVENTION OF GAMBLING ACT, 1887 Section 12

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

FATEMABEN W/O MUSABHAI ISHAKBHAI MATAVA

JILUBEN D/O AARABBHAI SULEMANBHAI HINGOLA

SALMABEN D/O ABUBHAI OSMANBHAI SAMA

SHITALBEN W/O HARESHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI MAKHECHA

NURMABEN W/O IQBALBHAI BABUBHAI SIPAI

Hearing History

Judge: 8-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

16-05-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

10-04-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

14-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

12-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

20-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Interim Orders

13-09-2025
ORDER

Case 3501/2025 Summary The court convicted the three accused (Jiluben, Fatemaben, and Salmaben) under IPC Section 278 and Gambling Act Section 12 for illegal gambling. Each accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or face three days simple imprisonment in default; seized gambling materials were ordered destroyed, and the accused's claims to the seized property were rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 3501/2025 Summary The court convicted the three accused (Jiluben, Fatemaben, and Salmaben) under IPC Section 278 and Gambling Act Section 12 for illegal gambling. Each accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or face three days simple imprisonment in default; seized gambling materials were ordered destroyed, and the accused's claims to the seized property were rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT JUNAGADH All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case