GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs IKBAL UMAR BUCHAD Advocate - K N GAGIYA — 1011/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 11th July 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030014182026

Filing Number

1011/2026

Filing Date

22-Apr-2026

Registration No

1011/2026

Registration Date

22-Apr-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA

Judge

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

Decision Date

11-Jul-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 18-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

622

Police Station

MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.IKBAL UMAR BUCHAD Advocate - K N GAGIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jul-2026

    Order

    The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 185 and Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for an education-related offense. The accused, a poor man and sole earner, pleaded guilty and sought leniency. Applying reformative punishment principles, the court sentenced him to a fine of ₹5,100 (with 30 days simple imprisonment as default) rather than maximum punishment, finding that justice would be served through rehabilitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Jul-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 06-Jul-2026

    Order

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 18-Jun-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 26-May-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 22-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 22-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1011/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 185 and Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for an education-related offense. The accused, a poor man and sole earner, pleaded guilty and sought leniency. Applying reformative punishment principles, the court sentenced him to a fine of ₹5,100 (with 30 days simple imprisonment as default) rather than maximum punishment, finding that justice would be served through rehabilitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case