GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs SAIYAD FAKIR MAHMAD NURUDDINMIYA Advocate - M M GHANCHI — 9/2024

Case under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 Section 11(1)a. Disposed: Uncontested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMH160000172024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

9/2024

Filing Date

16-06-2005

Registration No

9/2024

Registration Date

16-06-2005

Court

TALUKA COURT-JOTANA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

30th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

II 105

Police Station

KADI POLICE STATION- MEHSANA DISTRICT

Year

2005

Acts & Sections

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960 Section 11(1)a
GUJARAT (BOMBAY) ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1954 Section 5,8

Petitioner(s)

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

Adv. B B CHAVDA

Respondent(s)

SAIYAD FAKIR MAHMAD NURUDDINMIYA Advocate - M M GHANCHI

SHEKH MUSTUFA KASAMBHAI

SHEKH MAHMAD SAHIDBHAI ABDUL RAHEMANBHAI

KURESHI MAHMAD EKABALBHAI HASAMBHAI

SHEKH JAVID MAHMADSAFIBHAI

SHEKH MAKBUL AHEMADBHAI ABDULBHAI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

30-04-2026

Disposed

28-04-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

21-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

07-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

10-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

30-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jotana discharged all six accused persons and disposed of the animal cruelty case (FIR II/105/2005) due to the prosecution's persistent inability to serve summons on the accused or secure witness attendance over nearly two decades. The court found it futile to continue proceedings without the necessary stakeholders and prioritized timely judicial resolution over indefinite pending litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jotana discharged all six accused persons and disposed of the animal cruelty case (FIR II/105/2005) due to the prosecution's persistent inability to serve summons on the accused or secure witness attendance over nearly two decades. The court found it futile to continue proceedings without the necessary stakeholders and prioritized timely judicial resolution over indefinite pending litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT-JOTANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case