Government of Gujarat vs RAJENDRAKUMAR KANTILAL RANA Advocate - F N MIRZA — 190/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85(1),66(1)(b). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050003802026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

190/2026

Filing Date

10-02-2026

Registration No

190/2026

Registration Date

10-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KAPADVANJ

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

FIR Details

FIR Number

491

Police Station

KAPADWANJ TOWN POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 85(1),66(1)(b)

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

RAJENDRAKUMAR KANTILAL RANA Advocate - F N MIRZA

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

14-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

10-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kapadvanj convicted the accused, Rajendra Kumar Kantilal Rana, under Section 66.1.B and 85(1) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for public intoxication. While the charge sheet included Section 85(1), the court found insufficient evidence and proceeded only under Section 66.1.B. The court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine and imprisonment until the rising of court, with an additional 3-day simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid, citing the accused's poverty and family responsibilities as mitigating factors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kapadvanj convicted the accused, Rajendra Kumar Kantilal Rana, under Section 66.1.B and 85(1) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for public intoxication. While the charge sheet included Section 85(1), the court found insufficient evidence and proceeded only under Section 66.1.B. The court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine and imprisonment until the rising of court, with an additional 3-day simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid, citing the accused's poverty and family responsibilities as mitigating factors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, KAPADVANJ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case