THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AJITBHAI MALSINGBHAI PANDA Advocate - A Y MANSURI — 166/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116(B). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 05th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC RLY - CRIMINAL CASE - RAILWAY

CNR: GJVD240001882026

Filing Number

166/2026

Filing Date

06-Jan-2026

Registration No

166/2026

Registration Date

06-Jan-2026

Court

VADODARA RAILWAY COURT, VADODARA

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)

Decision Date

05-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 10-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AJITBHAI MALSINGBHAI PANDA Advocate - A Y MANSURI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Order

    The Vadodara court convicted the accused under IPC Section 264 (adulteration of provisions) read with the Gujarat Food Safety Rules 2012, finding him guilty of selling provisions below the prescribed minimum quantity limit of 20 liters. Considering the accused's poor financial condition, family circumstances, and first-time offense, the court imposed a reduced sentence of a fine of Rs. 200 (in default, two days simple imprisonment) instead of the statutory minimum, citing adequate grounds for leniency and principles of criminal justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways)

  4. 21-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 06-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 166/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Vadodara court convicted the accused under IPC Section 264 (adulteration of provisions) read with the Gujarat Food Safety Rules 2012, finding him guilty of selling provisions below the prescribed minimum quantity limit of 20 liters. Considering the accused's poor financial condition, family circumstances, and first-time offense, the court imposed a reduced sentence of a fine of Rs. 200 (in default, two days simple imprisonment) instead of the statutory minimum, citing adequate grounds for leniency and principles of criminal justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case