Government of Gujarat vs RAFIK FARUKBHAI BANVA Advocate - N B LAKHANI — 5764/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 223. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN020093432025
Filing Number
5764/2025
Filing Date
06-Dec-2025
Registration No
5764/2025
Registration Date
06-Dec-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT JUNAGADH
Judge
7-2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11203004250502
Police Station
JUNAGADH C DIVISION POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAFIK FARUKBHAI BANVA Advocate - N B LAKHANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The Gujarat Additional Sessions Court convicted the accused under IPC Section 223 and Gujarat Police Act Section 131 for selling illicit liquor in Junagadh and damaging the collector's office. The court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for 7 days or a fine of Rs. 500, and rejected the accused's plea for leniency based on poverty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
12-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
20-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
17-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
13-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
12-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
06-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 5764/2025
The Gujarat Additional Sessions Court convicted the accused under IPC Section 223 and Gujarat Police Act Section 131 for selling illicit liquor in Junagadh and damaging the collector's office. The court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for 7 days or a fine of Rs. 500, and rejected the accused's plea for leniency based on poverty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts