Government of Gujarat vs ARVINDBHAI GOVINDBHAI MAKADIYA — 136/2026
Case under Public Gambling Act, 1867 [Section 1 18] Section 12. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN080001522026
Filing Number
136/2026
Filing Date
08-Jan-2026
Registration No
136/2026
Registration Date
08-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
11203030250566
Police Station
KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.ARVINDBHAI GOVINDBHAI MAKADIYA
-
2.JETHABHAI LAKHABHAI MAKDIYA
-
3.VANRAJBHAI JETHABHAI MAKDIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary of Case 136/2026 The court convicted three respondents (Arvindbhai Govindbhai Makadiya, Jethabhai Lakhabhai Makdiya, and Vanrajbhai Jethabhai Makdiya) under IPC Section 275 and Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 12 for illegal liquor offense. Each accused was sentenced to a fine of ₹100 (total ₹300), with two days simple imprisonment as default in case of non-payment. The court rejected their plea of poverty and reformation, finding sufficient evidence of guilt and accordingly imposed the penalty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
13-Mar-2026
Summons - Notice
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
20-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 136/2026
Summary of Case 136/2026 The court convicted three respondents (Arvindbhai Govindbhai Makadiya, Jethabhai Lakhabhai Makdiya, and Vanrajbhai Jethabhai Makdiya) under IPC Section 275 and Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 12 for illegal liquor offense. Each accused was sentenced to a fine of ₹100 (total ₹300), with two days simple imprisonment as default in case of non-payment. The court rejected their plea of poverty and reformation, finding sufficient evidence of guilt and accordingly imposed the penalty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts