GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs KARIM JUNSH JUNEJA Advocate - K N GAGIYA — 652/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030009492026

Filing Number

652/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

652/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA

Judge

3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

232

Police Station

MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KARIM JUNSH JUNEJA Advocate - K N GAGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court convicted the accused of a bailable offense under IPC Section 281 and MV Act Sections 177, 184 based on his voluntary plea of guilt. Considering the accused's poor economic status, family circumstances, and applying reformative theory of punishment, the court acquitted him (probation) rather than imposing imprisonment, finding that justice would be served without punishment. The accused was ordered to pay a fine of ₹3,500 or face 15 days simple imprisonment in default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 652/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court convicted the accused of a bailable offense under IPC Section 281 and MV Act Sections 177, 184 based on his voluntary plea of guilt. Considering the accused's poor economic status, family circumstances, and applying reformative theory of punishment, the court acquitted him (probation) rather than imposing imprisonment, finding that justice would be served without punishment. The accused was ordered to pay a fine of ₹3,500 or face 15 days simple imprisonment in default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case