Government of Gujarat vs KONILESHBHAI URFE KAMLESH RAMESHBHAI GAMIT Advocate - C M GAMIT — 882/2026

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: GJTP060009572026

Filing Number

882/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

882/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-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

11824004253048

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.KONILESHBHAI URFE KAMLESH RAMESHBHAI GAMIT Advocate - C M GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under Section 275(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for an offense related to education provision, sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 500 with an alternative six-day simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The court considered the accused's poverty, family responsibilities, and the reformative purpose of law while imposing lenient punishment, relying on precedent judgments that emphasize rehabilitation over mere punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 882/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under Section 275(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for an offense related to education provision, sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 500 with an alternative six-day simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The court considered the accused's poverty, family responsibilities, and the reformative purpose of law while imposing lenient punishment, relying on precedent judgments that emphasize rehabilitation over mere punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case