STATE OF GUJARAT vs AMINMIYA BACHUMIYA MALEK Advocate - M K SHAH — 24/2024

Case under Arms Act Section 25(1)(a),25(1-a),25(1a-a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: GJKH010012082024

Filing Number

24/2024

Filing Date

26-Feb-2024

Registration No

24/2024

Registration Date

26-Feb-2024

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

6-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204041230841

Police Station

MAHEMDAVAD POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Arms Act Section 25(1)(a),25(1-a),25(1a-a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. G V THAKUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AMINMIYA BACHUMIYA MALEK Advocate - M K SHAH

  2. 2.TOSIFMIYA KALUMIYA MALEK

    Adv. M K SHAH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 24/2024 Case: State of Gujarat v. Aminmiya Bachumiya Malek and Tosifmiya Kalumiya Malek Court: Third Additional Sessions Court, Nadiad, Gujarat Judgment Date: 30 March 2026 Key Facts: Police recovered an unlicensed Indian-made country pistol from accused Aminmiya Bachumiya Malek's residence during a raid on 27 July 2023. The weapon, valued at ₹5,000, was seized and found in an unlocked safe in his home. Charges: Violations of Arms Act-1959, Sections 25(1)(a), 25(1-a), 25(1-a-a)—unlicensed possession of prohibited firearms. Verdict: - Accused 1 (Aminmiya): Convicted under Arms Act Sections 25(1)(a) and 25(1-a); sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine, with additional 6 months imprisonment if fine unpaid. - Accused 2 (Tosifmiya): Acquitted for insufficient direct evidence despite being accused of originally providing the pistol. Key Reasoning: While evidence suggested Tosifmiya provided the weapon, insufficient direct proof connected him to this specific crime; benefit of doubt granted. Primary evidence against Aminmiya was conclusive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  6. 07-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  7. 29-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  8. 08-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  9. 18-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  10. 05-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  11. 20-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  12. 06-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  13. 16-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  14. 04-Oct-2025

    Further Statement

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 25-Sep-2025

    Further Statement

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 11-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  17. 28-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  18. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  20. 17-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  21. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  22. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  23. 16-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  24. 22-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  25. 08-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  26. 24-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  27. 03-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 13-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  29. 13-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  30. 27-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  31. 09-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  32. 05-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  33. 17-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  34. 19-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  35. 29-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  36. 19-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  37. 28-Jun-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    3rd Addl District Judge

  38. 03-Jun-2024

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  39. 16-May-2024

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  40. 20-Apr-2024

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  41. 28-Mar-2024

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  42. 07-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  43. 26-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 24/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 24/2024 Case: State of Gujarat v. Aminmiya Bachumiya Malek and Tosifmiya Kalumiya Malek Court: Third Additional Sessions Court, Nadiad, Gujarat Judgment Date: 30 March 2026 Key Facts: Police recovered an unlicensed Indian-made country pistol from accused Aminmiya Bachumiya Malek's residence during a raid on 27 July 2023. The weapon, valued at ₹5,000, was seized and found in an unlocked safe in his home. Charges: Violations of Arms Act-1959, Sections 25(1)(a), 25(1-a), 25(1-a-a)—unlicensed possession of prohibited firearms. Verdict: - Accused 1 (Aminmiya): Convicted under Arms Act Sections 25(1)(a) and 25(1-a); sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine, with additional 6 months imprisonment if fine unpaid. - Accused 2 (Tosifmiya): Acquitted for insufficient direct evidence despite being accused of originally providing the pistol. Key Reasoning: While evidence suggested Tosifmiya provided the weapon, insufficient direct proof connected him to this specific crime; benefit of doubt granted. Primary evidence against Aminmiya was conclusive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case