Government of Gujarat vs UMESHBHAI RUMASHIBHAI VASAVA Advocate - G V VASAVA — 890/2026

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

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060009652026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

890/2026

Filing Date

05-03-2026

Registration No

890/2026

Registration Date

05-03-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SONGADH

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

FIR Details

FIR Number

11824004252842

Police Station

SONGADH POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

UMESHBHAI RUMASHIBHAI VASAVA Advocate - G V VASAVA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

14-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

NOTICE TO OPPONENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

The Surat First Class Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under IPC Section 275 (adulteration of food) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500 with six days simple imprisonment as alternative, considering the accused's poor economic condition and family responsibilities as mitigating factors while maintaining the law's deterrent purpose. The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment, noting that the accused committed the offense inadvertently and should be given an opportunity to reform and reintegrate into society. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Surat First Class Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under IPC Section 275 (adulteration of food) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500 with six days simple imprisonment as alternative, considering the accused's poor economic condition and family responsibilities as mitigating factors while maintaining the law's deterrent purpose. The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment, noting that the accused committed the offense inadvertently and should be given an opportunity to reform and reintegrate into society. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SONGADH All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case