Government of Gujarat vs ANKITBHAI VINODBHAI GAMIT Advocate - G G VASAVA — 404/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060004542026

Filing Number

404/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

404/2026

Registration Date

11-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SONGADH

Judge

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

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11824004252470

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.ANKITBHAI VINODBHAI GAMIT Advocate - G G VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 275 (adulteration of food) under the Gujarat Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, finding the accused guilty of selling adulterated food items. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 600 with an alternative six-day simple imprisonment, considering the accused's poor economic condition and family responsibilities as mitigating factors while maintaining the deterrent purpose of the law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 404/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 275 (adulteration of food) under the Gujarat Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, finding the accused guilty of selling adulterated food items. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 600 with an alternative six-day simple imprisonment, considering the accused's poor economic condition and family responsibilities as mitigating factors while maintaining the deterrent purpose of the law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case