Ravi vs STATE Advocate - P.P — 92/2023

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--PARTIALLY ALLOWED on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Appeal

CNR: RJJH010027192023

Filing Number

2199/2023

Filing Date

19-Sep-2023

Registration No

92/2023

Registration Date

27-Sep-2023

Court

DJ ADJ Jhunjhunu District HQ

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTIALLY ALLOWED

Last updated 27-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

30

Police Station

Police Station Excise, Jhunjhunu

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ravi

    Adv. Sh. Mandroop Singh

  2. 2.Arvin alias Sumit

    Adv. Sh. Mandroop Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE Advocate - P.P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Case Summary: 92/2023 (Ravi and Arvin alias Sumit v. State) Decision: The Session Court upheld the conviction of both appellants under Sections 19/54 and 14/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act for possessing 68 bottles of illicit liquor. However, the court set aside the original sentence of three years imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine per appellant, instead placing them on one-year probation under the Probation of Offenders Act with ₹25,000 bond each and ₹20,000 prosecution cost per appellant. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution evidence credible despite appellants' argument that only police witnesses testified. The ward member's certificate confirmed the seized residence belonged to appellant Ravi, and FSL reports confirmed alcohol content in samples. The court rejected arguments about lack of independent witnesses, noting that absence of such witnesses in the police report doesn't negate established facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  8. 07-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  9. 06-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  10. 27-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  11. 26-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  12. 24-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  13. 17-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  14. 16-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  15. 12-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    District and Sessions Judge

  16. 09-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  17. 06-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  18. 03-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  19. 05-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  20. 12-Dec-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  21. 24-Nov-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  22. 01-Nov-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  23. 26-Sep-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  24. 29-Aug-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  25. 05-Aug-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  26. 11-Jul-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  27. 16-Jun-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  28. 03-Jun-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  29. 13-May-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  30. 24-Apr-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  31. 25-Mar-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  32. 25-Feb-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  33. 29-Jan-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  34. 02-Jan-2025

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  35. 27-Nov-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  36. 29-Oct-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  37. 01-Oct-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  38. 07-Sep-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  39. 14-Aug-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  40. 23-Jul-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  41. 26-Jun-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  42. 07-Jun-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  43. 18-May-2024

    Final arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  44. 04-May-2024

    Hearing on Admission

    District and Sessions Judge

  45. 22-Apr-2024

    Hearing on Admission

    District and Sessions Judge

  46. 01-Apr-2024

    Awaiting records

    District and Sessions Judge

  47. 14-Mar-2024

    Awaiting records

    District and Sessions Judge

  48. 15-Feb-2024

    Awaiting records

    District and Sessions Judge

  49. 19-Jan-2024

    Awaiting records

    District and Sessions Judge

  50. 13-Dec-2023

    Awaiting records

    District and Sessions Judge

  51. 20-Nov-2023

    Awaiting records

    District and Sessions Judge

  52. 27-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  53. 19-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 92/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 92/2023 (Ravi and Arvin alias Sumit v. State) Decision: The Session Court upheld the conviction of both appellants under Sections 19/54 and 14/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act for possessing 68 bottles of illicit liquor. However, the court set aside the original sentence of three years imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine per appellant, instead placing them on one-year probation under the Probation of Offenders Act with ₹25,000 bond each and ₹20,000 prosecution cost per appellant. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution evidence credible despite appellants' argument that only police witnesses testified. The ward member's certificate confirmed the seized residence belonged to appellant Ravi, and FSL reports confirmed alcohol content in samples. The court rejected arguments about lack of independent witnesses, noting that absence of such witnesses in the police report doesn't negate established facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case