Government of Gujarat vs SURENDRABHAI BASANTBHAI LODHI — 11/2024
Case under The Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section 79,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSR120000642024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
11/2024
Filing Date
04-01-2024
Registration No
11/2024
Registration Date
04-01-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, KATHOR
Judge
2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11214020232219
Police Station
KAMREJ POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SURENDRABHAI BASANTBHAI LODHI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 26-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 12-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 12-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 18-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Juvenile Justice Court in Surat acquitted the accused, Surendbhai Basantbhai Lodhi, of charges under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 (Section 79) and the Child Labor (Prohibition & Regulation) Act 1986 (Sections 3 & 14). The court found insufficient credible evidence of child labor; key witnesses contradicted prosecution claims, the panchnama (official record) procedures were questioned, and no corroborating documents proved the accused employed or paid the minors as alleged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Juvenile Justice Court in Surat acquitted the accused, Surendbhai Basantbhai Lodhi, of charges under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 (Section 79) and the Child Labor (Prohibition & Regulation) Act 1986 (Sections 3 & 14). The court found insufficient credible evidence of child labor; key witnesses contradicted prosecution claims, the panchnama (official record) procedures were questioned, and no corroborating documents proved the accused employed or paid the minors as alleged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts