Government of Gujarat vs GOPALBHAI MANGABHAI CHOUHAN — 78/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN080000922026

Filing Number

78/2026

Filing Date

06-Jan-2026

Registration No

78/2026

Registration Date

06-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250597

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOPALBHAI MANGABHAI CHOUHAN

  2. 2.MAHENDRA MANUBHAI VALA

  3. 3.MILANBHAI DAYABHAI VALA

  4. 4.DALPAT RAJSI MUCHADIYA

  5. 5.ANANTRAI ARJANBHAI VALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted five accused persons under IPC Section 12 (Gujarat Gambling Act) and sentenced each to a fine of ₹100 with an alternative imprisonment of 2 days in default. The court granted the accused the benefit of probation considering they belonged to poor economic backgrounds with family responsibilities and promised reformation. Seized cash, vehicles, and property were ordered to be forfeited to the government or returned to legitimate owners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

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

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 78/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted five accused persons under IPC Section 12 (Gujarat Gambling Act) and sentenced each to a fine of ₹100 with an alternative imprisonment of 2 days in default. The court granted the accused the benefit of probation considering they belonged to poor economic backgrounds with family responsibilities and promised reformation. Seized cash, vehicles, and property were ordered to be forfeited to the government or returned to legitimate owners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case