STATE OF GUJARAT vs NITESHBHAI MAHARYABHAI PAWAR Advocate - S S DABKE — 91/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNV130001022026

Filing Number

91/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

91/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUBIR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NITESHBHAI MAHARYABHAI PAWAR Advocate - S S DABKE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Surat Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under IPC Sections 185 and Probation Act Section 22(1) for offenses related to driving violations. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of ₹200 (two hundred rupees) with a provision for two days simple imprisonment in default of payment, considering the accused's financial hardship as the sole earning member of a poor family. The court also ordered that seized property be either maintained or returned to its rightful owner as per procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 91/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Surat Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under IPC Sections 185 and Probation Act Section 22(1) for offenses related to driving violations. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of ₹200 (two hundred rupees) with a provision for two days simple imprisonment in default of payment, considering the accused's financial hardship as the sole earning member of a poor family. The court also ordered that seized property be either maintained or returned to its rightful owner as per procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case