Government of Gujarat vs UMESHBHAI DIVANJIBHAI GAMIT Advocate - C M GAMIT — 920/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060009972026

Filing Number

920/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

920/2026

Registration Date

06-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

11824004252580

Police Station

SONGADH POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UMESHBHAI DIVANJIBHAI GAMIT Advocate - C M GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) and IPC Section 185, finding him guilty of consuming alcohol. However, considering the accused's poor financial status, family responsibilities, and principles of reformation, the court imposed a lenient sentence of a fine of ₹500 (or 7 days simple imprisonment if default) rather than the maximum penalty, balancing punishment with rehabilitative justice. 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. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 920/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) and IPC Section 185, finding him guilty of consuming alcohol. However, considering the accused's poor financial status, family responsibilities, and principles of reformation, the court imposed a lenient sentence of a fine of ₹500 (or 7 days simple imprisonment if default) rather than the maximum penalty, balancing punishment with rehabilitative justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case