Government of Gujarat vs RAVAJI GOKALDAS DHANKECHA — 710/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020010332026

Filing Number

710/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

710/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-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

11185007250442

Police Station

SALAYA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVAJI GOKALDAS DHANKECHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC.No.710/2026 Government of Gujarat v. Ravaji Gokaldas Dhankecha The court convicted the respondent under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended 2016) for possessing illicit liquor. The respondent voluntarily confessed to the offense and sought leniency. The court sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees fine, recognizing sufficient and justifiable reasons for imposing reduced punishment rather than the minimum statutory sentence, considering the respondent's circumstances and potential for rehabilitation in society. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 710/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.710/2026 Government of Gujarat v. Ravaji Gokaldas Dhankecha The court convicted the respondent under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (as amended 2016) for possessing illicit liquor. The respondent voluntarily confessed to the offense and sought leniency. The court sentenced him to imprisonment of 150 rupees fine, recognizing sufficient and justifiable reasons for imposing reduced punishment rather than the minimum statutory sentence, considering the respondent's circumstances and potential for rehabilitation in society. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case