THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KALABHAI CHHAGANBHAI VAJIR — 226/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116-B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK210002522026

Filing Number

226/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

226/2026

Registration Date

20-Feb-2026

Court

Taluka Court, Lakhni

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11195001250352

Police Station

AGTHALA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KALABHAI CHHAGANBHAI VAJIR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kalabhai Chhaganbhai Vajir (CC 226/2026) The court convicted the respondent Kalabhai Chhaganbhai Vajir under IPC Section 65A, 116(2) (general offense under Bombay Prohibition Act). Considering the respondent's poor financial condition, first-time offender status, and sole earning member status in his family, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine rather than the maximum prescribed penalty, exercising discretionary sentencing authority in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 226/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kalabhai Chhaganbhai Vajir (CC 226/2026) The court convicted the respondent Kalabhai Chhaganbhai Vajir under IPC Section 65A, 116(2) (general offense under Bombay Prohibition Act). Considering the respondent's poor financial condition, first-time offender status, and sole earning member status in his family, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine rather than the maximum prescribed penalty, exercising discretionary sentencing authority in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case