THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs LAXMIBEN WO VISHALBHAI UDABHAI CHUNARA — 63/2026

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: GJKH110000952026

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

63/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

63/2026

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

726

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.LAXMIBEN WO VISHALBHAI UDABHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Laxmiben The court convicted respondent Laxmiben under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 2 liters of country liquor (valued at ₹400) recovered during a police check. However, recognizing mitigating circumstances—the respondent's first offense, impoverished status, and family dependence on her labor—the court imposed lenient sentencing rather than the maximum penalty, ordering a fine of ₹200 with 5 days' simple imprisonment as alternative, citing principles of judicial discretion for vulnerable offenders. 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. 63/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Laxmiben The court convicted respondent Laxmiben under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 2 liters of country liquor (valued at ₹400) recovered during a police check. However, recognizing mitigating circumstances—the respondent's first offense, impoverished status, and family dependence on her labor—the court imposed lenient sentencing rather than the maximum penalty, ordering a fine of ₹200 with 5 days' simple imprisonment as alternative, citing principles of judicial discretion for vulnerable offenders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case