Government of Gujarat vs KALPESHBHAI GAMANABHAI GAMIT Advocate - A A GAMIT — 904/2026

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: GJTP060009792026

Filing Number

904/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

904/2026

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

11824004253086

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.KALPESHBHAI GAMANABHAI GAMIT Advocate - A A GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The Gujarat High Court granted the accused's plea bargaining application under CrPC Section 265-290, allowing the accused to accept conviction while maintaining innocence (similar to Alford plea principles) and imposing a suspended sentence of 6 months with a Rs. 500 fine. The court emphasized that this "mutually satisfactory disposition" was appropriate given the case's nature, the accused's age, and social-economic circumstances, while noting such pleas require judicial oversight to ensure fairness and victim consideration. 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

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 904/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court granted the accused's plea bargaining application under CrPC Section 265-290, allowing the accused to accept conviction while maintaining innocence (similar to Alford plea principles) and imposing a suspended sentence of 6 months with a Rs. 500 fine. The court emphasized that this "mutually satisfactory disposition" was appropriate given the case's nature, the accused's age, and social-economic circumstances, while noting such pleas require judicial oversight to ensure fairness and victim consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case