Government of Gujarat vs SATISHBHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT Advocate - C M GAMIT — 301/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060003462026

Filing Number

301/2026

Filing Date

07-Feb-2026

Registration No

301/2026

Registration Date

07-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SONGADH

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11824004252900

Police Station

SONGADH POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SATISHBHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT Advocate - C M GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court found the accused guilty under IPC Section 275 (education-related offense) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500, with six days simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine is not paid. The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment, considering the accused's poverty and family responsibilities, while upholding the conviction's purpose of deterrence and social reformation. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 301/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused guilty under IPC Section 275 (education-related offense) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500, with six days simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine is not paid. The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment, considering the accused's poverty and family responsibilities, while upholding the conviction's purpose of deterrence and social reformation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case