Government of Gujarat vs RAVISHBHAI DILIPBHAI GAMIT Advocate - D S GAMIT — 2212/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 15th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJTP060023962025
Filing Number
2212/2025
Filing Date
30-Jun-2025
Registration No
2212/2025
Registration Date
30-Jun-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SONGADH
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
15-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11824004251148
Police Station
SONGADH POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAVISHBHAI DILIPBHAI GAMIT Advocate - D S GAMIT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Order
The court accepted the accused's plea bargaining application under CrPC Section 265C and permitted conviction without admission of guilt, allowing the accused to maintain innocence while consenting to conviction. The court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the period already served plus a fine of ₹600, considering the accused's good conduct, age, and socio-economic circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Jan-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Dec-2025
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Nov-2025
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Sep-2025
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Aug-2025
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2212/2025
The court accepted the accused's plea bargaining application under CrPC Section 265C and permitted conviction without admission of guilt, allowing the accused to maintain innocence while consenting to conviction. The court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the period already served plus a fine of ₹600, considering the accused's good conduct, age, and socio-economic circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts