The State Of Gujarat vs JENAJI BABUJI MAKVANA — 127/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSK030001802026

Filing Number

127/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

127/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, PRANTIJ

Judge

3-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 12-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1273

Police Station

PRANTIJ POLICE STATION - SABARKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State Of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JENAJI BABUJI MAKVANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 135 (disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant) and sentenced him to a fine of ₹100 with an alternative of two days simple imprisonment. The judgment emphasized that while the accused's guilty plea was noted, the court considered all circumstances, the time taken by various parties, and the principle of minimum sentence to ensure justice was served, ultimately imposing a lenient penalty due to the first-time offence and lack of criminal intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 127/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 135 (disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant) and sentenced him to a fine of ₹100 with an alternative of two days simple imprisonment. The judgment emphasized that while the accused's guilty plea was noted, the court considered all circumstances, the time taken by various parties, and the principle of minimum sentence to ensure justice was served, ultimately imposing a lenient penalty due to the first-time offence and lack of criminal intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case