Government of Gujarat vs ANKURBHAI VINESHBHAI CHAUDHARI Advocate - M N CHAUDHARI — 377/2026

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: GJTP060004272026

Filing Number

377/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

377/2026

Registration Date

11-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

11824004252553

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.ANKURBHAI VINESHBHAI CHAUDHARI Advocate - M N CHAUDHARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court found the accused guilty under IPC Section 275 (related to adulterating food/provisions intended for sale) under the Gujarat Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, considering the accused's poor economic circumstances, family dependents, and absence of prior criminal history as mitigating factors. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of ₹500 (or six days simple imprisonment in default), emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation as the law's objective. 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

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 377/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused guilty under IPC Section 275 (related to adulterating food/provisions intended for sale) under the Gujarat Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, considering the accused's poor economic circumstances, family dependents, and absence of prior criminal history as mitigating factors. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of ₹500 (or six days simple imprisonment in default), emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation as the law's objective. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case