State vs Ashwin Bhatiya etc. Advocate - Sh. Virendra Sing Chouhan — 156/2019

Case under Rajasthan Excise Act Section 19,54,54A. Disposed: Uncontested--Convicted and Released on Probation on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJDG090002112019

Filing Number

211/2019

Filing Date

12-Jul-2019

Registration No

156/2019

Registration Date

12-Jul-2019

Court

Criminal Cases Simalwara Establishment

Judge

1-Jm

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Convicted and Released on Probation

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

6

Police Station

Police Station Dhambola

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Rajasthan Excise Act Section 19,54,54A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ashwin Bhatiya etc. Advocate - Sh. Virendra Sing Chouhan

  2. 2.Naresh Makwana

    Adv. Sh. Virendra Sing Chouhan

  3. 3.Mahesh Bharwar

    Adv. Sh. Virendra Sing Chouhan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court upheld the order under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act against the accused, confirming that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumption of guilt. The court imposed a fine of ₹2,400 and directed the petitioner to deposit this amount, rejecting the appeal for acquittal while also declining to impose additional punishment beyond the fine already levied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  5. 15-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  6. 11-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  7. 06-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  8. 12-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  9. 05-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  10. 17-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  11. 28-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  12. 23-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  13. 22-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  14. 21-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  15. 15-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  16. 21-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  17. 26-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  18. 20-Nov-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  19. 28-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  20. 22-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  21. 05-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  22. 24-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  23. 01-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  24. 06-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  25. 26-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  26. 22-Mar-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  27. 06-Dec-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  28. 20-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  29. 05-Aug-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  30. 22-Jun-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  31. 11-May-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  32. 22-Mar-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

  33. 06-Feb-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  34. 07-Dec-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  35. 23-Oct-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  36. 05-Aug-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  37. 03-Jul-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  38. 06-Jun-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  39. 11-May-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  40. 27-Apr-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  41. 09-Apr-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  42. 24-Mar-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  43. 02-Dec-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Jm

  44. 17-Sep-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  45. 12-Jul-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 156/2019

casestatus.in Summary

The court upheld the order under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act against the accused, confirming that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumption of guilt. The court imposed a fine of ₹2,400 and directed the petitioner to deposit this amount, rejecting the appeal for acquittal while also declining to impose additional punishment beyond the fine already levied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case