GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs RAMO REVA SATHVARA — 3186/2025

Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT030039502025

Filing Number

3186/2025

Filing Date

20-Dec-2025

Registration No

3186/2025

Registration Date

20-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA

Judge

5-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

218

Police Station

MUNDRA MARINE POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMO REVA SATHVARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused of an offense under Section 65(a)(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (possessing liquor for consumption). The accused, being from a poor background and the sole earning member of his family, pleaded guilty and sought leniency. The court sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 with an alternative imprisonment of 15 days, applying reformative punishment principles rather than maximum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Lok Adalat

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 20-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3186/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused of an offense under Section 65(a)(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (possessing liquor for consumption). The accused, being from a poor background and the sole earning member of his family, pleaded guilty and sought leniency. The court sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 with an alternative imprisonment of 15 days, applying reformative punishment principles rather than maximum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case