Government of Gujarat vs BHARATPARI HEMATPARI GOSWAMI — 14/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 22nd April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN080000222026

Filing Number

14/2026

Filing Date

03-Jan-2026

Registration No

14/2026

Registration Date

03-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

1-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

22-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250925

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHARATPARI HEMATPARI GOSWAMI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    Order

    The court convicted the respondent Bharatpari Hematpari Goswami under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (driving a vehicle without a valid license) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 5,000 with the alternative of 10 days' imprisonment. The court considered the respondent's plea for leniency based on his status as the sole breadwinner of his poor family, but found the offense established and imposed the penalty as a cautionary measure for traffic law violations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 03-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 14/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the respondent Bharatpari Hematpari Goswami under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (driving a vehicle without a valid license) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 5,000 with the alternative of 10 days' imprisonment. The court considered the respondent's plea for leniency based on his status as the sole breadwinner of his poor family, but found the offense established and imposed the penalty as a cautionary measure for traffic law violations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case