THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SOMABHAI MAGANBHAI ZALA — 61/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH110000932026

e-Filing Number

22-12-2025

Filing Number

61/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

61/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KHEDA

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

694

Police Station

KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SOMABHAI MAGANBHAI ZALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Somabhai Maganbhai Zala (61/2026) The court convicted Somabhai Maganbhai Zala under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 6 liters of illicit country liquor valued at ₹1,200. Considering the accused's plea of guilt, his status as a poor laborer supporting his family, and that this was his first offense, the court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of ₹200 (instead of the statutory maximum), rather than imposing the harsher prescribed punishment. 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. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 61/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Somabhai Maganbhai Zala (61/2026) The court convicted Somabhai Maganbhai Zala under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 6 liters of illicit country liquor valued at ₹1,200. Considering the accused's plea of guilt, his status as a poor laborer supporting his family, and that this was his first offense, the court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of ₹200 (instead of the statutory maximum), rather than imposing the harsher prescribed punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case