Government of Gujarat vs MAHENDRABHAI GOVINDBHAI TADVI Advocate - J R TADVI — 70/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR040000862026
e-Filing Number
23-04-2025
Filing Number
70/2026
Filing Date
22-01-2026
Registration No
70/2026
Registration Date
22-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEDIAPADA
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
FIR Details
FIR Number
11823004250110
Police Station
DEDIAPADA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
MAHENDRABHAI GOVINDBHAI TADVI Advocate - J R TADVI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
PLEA
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | PLEA | |
| 10-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 03-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 56(1) for theft committed during daytime and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 (or 5 days simple imprisonment in default), considering his voluntary confession, first-time offense, poor economic background, and family dependency. The judgment applied sentencing principles established in the State of Gujarat v. Hirachand case, imposing lenient punishment rather than the maximum penalty given the mitigating circumstances presented by the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 56(1) for theft committed during daytime and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 (or 5 days simple imprisonment in default), considering his voluntary confession, first-time offense, poor economic background, and family dependency. The judgment applied sentencing principles established in the State of Gujarat v. Hirachand case, imposing lenient punishment rather than the maximum penalty given the mitigating circumstances presented by 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