Government of Gujarat vs NILESHBHAI GAGAJIBHAI GAMIT — 927/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060010042026

Filing Number

927/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

927/2026

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

118240042527552

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.NILESHBHAI GAGAJIBHAI GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court accepted the accused's plea bargaining application under CrPC Section 265C, allowing him to plead guilty without admitting to the crime while maintaining his innocence—similar to the "Alford plea" concept recognized in US law. The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 61(1)(b) and imposed a fine of ₹500 with six months imprisonment, which was later reduced to a fine of ₹500 only, considering his age, conduct, and socioeconomic circumstances. 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. 927/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court accepted the accused's plea bargaining application under CrPC Section 265C, allowing him to plead guilty without admitting to the crime while maintaining his innocence—similar to the "Alford plea" concept recognized in US law. The court convicted the accused under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 61(1)(b) and imposed a fine of ₹500 with six months imprisonment, which was later reduced to a fine of ₹500 only, considering his age, conduct, and socioeconomic circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case