Government of Gujarat vs SATISHBHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT — 303/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJTP020004272026
e-Filing Number
06-12-2025
Filing Number
303/2026
Filing Date
23-02-2026
Registration No
303/2026
Registration Date
23-02-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT, VYARA
Judge
2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
FIR Details
FIR Number
2049
Police Station
VYARA POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SATISHBHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Disposed
PLEA
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLEA |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary Criminal Case No. 303/2026 (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vyara) The court convicted the accused under both the IPC Section 185 (driving under alcohol influence) and the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine of Rs. 1,000, with additional sentencing under Section 128 CrPC. The court found the accused voluntarily admitted to consuming alcohol in public without a permit, rejected his claims of no prior offense due to poverty, and determined that while the IPC offense alone would be non-cognizable, the Prohibition Act charge renders the combined case cognizable and triable by the Magistrate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary Criminal Case No. 303/2026 (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vyara) The court convicted the accused under both the IPC Section 185 (driving under alcohol influence) and the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine of Rs. 1,000, with additional sentencing under Section 128 CrPC. The court found the accused voluntarily admitted to consuming alcohol in public without a permit, rejected his claims of no prior offense due to poverty, and determined that while the IPC offense alone would be non-cognizable, the Prohibition Act charge renders the combined case cognizable and triable by the Magistrate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts