Government of Gujarat vs NANJIBHAI LAXMANBHAI VADARIYA — 88/2026

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: GJJN080001032026

Filing Number

88/2026

Filing Date

08-Jan-2026

Registration No

88/2026

Registration Date

08-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250677

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

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NANJIBHAI LAXMANBHAI VADARIYA

  2. 2.MAGANBHAI MOHANBHAI HISU

  3. 3.HIRABHAI DHARMSIBHAI DUDHATRA

  4. 4.RAJABHAI GAGABHAI ODEDARA

  5. 5.BHARATBHAI VASHRAMBHAI GAREJA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted all five accused persons under Section 12 of the Gambling Act for illegal gambling. The accused confessed voluntarily to the charges, and considering mitigating factors—this being their first offense, family responsibilities, genuine remorse, and assurance of reform—the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine each (or simple imprisonment of 3 days if unpaid) rather than the maximum penalty, believing rehabilitation was possible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 08-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 88/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted all five accused persons under Section 12 of the Gambling Act for illegal gambling. The accused confessed voluntarily to the charges, and considering mitigating factors—this being their first offense, family responsibilities, genuine remorse, and assurance of reform—the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine each (or simple imprisonment of 3 days if unpaid) rather than the maximum penalty, believing rehabilitation was possible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case