Government of Gujarat vs RAM RUDABHAI LALAVANI — 584/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020008602026

Filing Number

584/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

584/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT, KHAMBHALIA

Judge

4-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11185008260029

Police Station

VADINAR MARINE POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAM RUDABHAI LALAVANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 584/2026 Case: Government of Gujarat v. Ram Rudabhai Lalavani Decision: The court convicted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendments 2016, Section 65 (IPC). The accused received a reduced sentence of ₹300 fine instead of the maximum penalty, with an alternative 2-day simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The court applied lenient sentencing based on the accused's voluntary confession and consideration of mitigating circumstances, finding sufficient and valid reasons for imposing minimum punishment rather than the prescribed maximum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 584/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 584/2026 Case: Government of Gujarat v. Ram Rudabhai Lalavani Decision: The court convicted the accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Amendments 2016, Section 65 (IPC). The accused received a reduced sentence of ₹300 fine instead of the maximum penalty, with an alternative 2-day simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. The court applied lenient sentencing based on the accused's voluntary confession and consideration of mitigating circumstances, finding sufficient and valid reasons for imposing minimum punishment rather than the prescribed maximum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case