Government of Gujarat vs CHANCHALBEN URFF CHANDABEN W/O PUNAMBHAI LAKHABHAI — 173/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH040002232026

Filing Number

173/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

173/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MATAR

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

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHANCHALBEN URFF CHANDABEN W/O PUNAMBHAI LAKHABHAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Matar Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the respondent Chanchalben under Section 65(A)(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act after she voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offense. Considering the respondent's status as the sole breadwinner of her poor family, her first criminal offense, lack of legal knowledge, and hardship in attending court proceedings regularly, the court imposed a lenient sentence of time already served in custody and a fine of Rs. 100 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default), rather than the maximum punishment prescribed by law. 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. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 173/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Matar Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the respondent Chanchalben under Section 65(A)(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act after she voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offense. Considering the respondent's status as the sole breadwinner of her poor family, her first criminal offense, lack of legal knowledge, and hardship in attending court proceedings regularly, the court imposed a lenient sentence of time already served in custody and a fine of Rs. 100 (or 2 days simple imprisonment in default), rather than the maximum punishment prescribed by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case