Government of Gujarat vs PRADIPSINH GAMBHIRSINH SODHA Advocate - M D GADHAVI — 494/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 506,294(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 07th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT080005842025
Filing Number
494/2025
Filing Date
12-03-2025
Registration No
494/2025
Registration Date
12-03-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, RAPAR
Judge
2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
FIR Details
FIR Number
11993010240247
Police Station
RAHPAR POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PRADIPSINH GAMBHIRSINH SODHA Advocate - M D GADHAVI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 09-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 25-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Rapar, Kutch acquitted the accused Pradipsinh Gambhirsinh Sodha of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 506(2), and the Gujarat Money Lending Regulation Act Sections 5, 33(3), 42(d), and 47. The court found that the complainant's own testimony and cross-examination failed to establish the alleged offenses beyond reasonable doubt, as he admitted the accused did not demand extra interest or engage in harassment. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under CrPC Section 248(1), benefiting from the principle that doubt favors the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Rapar, Kutch acquitted the accused Pradipsinh Gambhirsinh Sodha of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 506(2), and the Gujarat Money Lending Regulation Act Sections 5, 33(3), 42(d), and 47. The court found that the complainant's own testimony and cross-examination failed to establish the alleged offenses beyond reasonable doubt, as he admitted the accused did not demand extra interest or engage in harassment. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under CrPC Section 248(1), benefiting from the principle that doubt favors the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts