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
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
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
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 10-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts