GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs DILIPSINH AKA KATO PUNJAJI CHAUHAN — 73/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85(1),66(1)(b). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050001062026

Filing Number

73/2026

Filing Date

13-Jan-2026

Registration No

73/2026

Registration Date

13-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KAPADVANJ

Judge

5-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

247

Police Station

ATTARSUMBA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85(1),66(1)(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DILIPSINH AKA KATO PUNJAJI CHAUHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary: The Kapadvanj Additional Chief Judge convicted Dilipsinh Urfe Karto Punjaji Chauhan under the Prohibition Act, Sections 85(1) and 66(1)(B), for consuming alcohol without a permit and being found intoxicated in public. The court, considering the accused's guilty plea, poor socioeconomic status as a daily laborer supporting his family, remorse, and promise of reformation, imposed a lenient sentence of ₹200 fine and imprisonment until the court rises, with an additional provision for one day's simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 73/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Kapadvanj Additional Chief Judge convicted Dilipsinh Urfe Karto Punjaji Chauhan under the Prohibition Act, Sections 85(1) and 66(1)(B), for consuming alcohol without a permit and being found intoxicated in public. The court, considering the accused's guilty plea, poor socioeconomic status as a daily laborer supporting his family, remorse, and promise of reformation, imposed a lenient sentence of ₹200 fine and imprisonment until the court rises, with an additional provision for one day's simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case