THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KAMLESHBHAI BACHUBHAI CHUNARA — 78/2026

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: GJKH110001102026

e-Filing Number

18-12-2025

Filing Number

78/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

78/2026

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

659

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.KAMLESHBHAI BACHUBHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case 78/2026 Summary: The court convicted Kamleshbhai Bachubhai Chunara under the Prohibition Act for possessing 3 liters of illegal liquor worth ₹600. However, considering mitigating factors—that the accused is poor, unemployed, supports his family through labor, and this is his first offense—the court imposed lenient sentencing of six months imprisonment and a ₹200 fine, rather than the maximum statutory penalty, emphasizing that justice is better served through proportionate punishment in the interests of equitable adjudication. 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. 78/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 78/2026 Summary: The court convicted Kamleshbhai Bachubhai Chunara under the Prohibition Act for possessing 3 liters of illegal liquor worth ₹600. However, considering mitigating factors—that the accused is poor, unemployed, supports his family through labor, and this is his first offense—the court imposed lenient sentencing of six months imprisonment and a ₹200 fine, rather than the maximum statutory penalty, emphasizing that justice is better served through proportionate punishment in the interests of equitable adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case