State of Gujarat vs RAVI URFE PRAFULBHAI JERAMBHAI BORASANA — 284/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020005652026

Filing Number

284/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

284/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court, Veraval

Judge

15-Addl. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11186009260166

Police Station

VERAVAL POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVI URFE PRAFULBHAI JERAMBHAI BORASANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 284/2026 The court found accused Ravi Urfe Prafulbhai Jerambhai Borasana guilty under BNS Section 71 (corresponding to Prohibition Act Section 66(1)B) after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that special and adequate reasons justify imposing sentences below statutory minimums, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 fine with time already served, or one day simple imprisonment in default, considering the accused's financial condition and circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. CIVIL Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Order

    Addl. CIVIL Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addl. CIVIL Judge

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 284/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 284/2026 The court found accused Ravi Urfe Prafulbhai Jerambhai Borasana guilty under BNS Section 71 (corresponding to Prohibition Act Section 66(1)B) after he voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that special and adequate reasons justify imposing sentences below statutory minimums, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹100 fine with time already served, or one day simple imprisonment in default, considering the accused's financial condition and 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