THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs LAXMIBEN ARVINDBHAI CHUNARA — 82/2026

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: GJKH110001142026

e-Filing Number

06-01-2026

Filing Number

82/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

82/2026

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

685

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 ARVINDBHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: 82/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Laxmiben Arvindbhai Chunara The court convicted the respondent under Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit alcohol valued at ₹800. The respondent pleaded guilty and sought leniency, citing her status as a poor, working-class woman supporting her family. The court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment until trial completion and a fine of ₹200, rather than the maximum prescribed penalty, exercising discretionary power to impose reduced punishment in light of her mitigating circumstances and socioeconomic condition. 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. 82/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 82/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Laxmiben Arvindbhai Chunara The court convicted the respondent under Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit alcohol valued at ₹800. The respondent pleaded guilty and sought leniency, citing her status as a poor, working-class woman supporting her family. The court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment until trial completion and a fine of ₹200, rather than the maximum prescribed penalty, exercising discretionary power to impose reduced punishment in light of her mitigating circumstances and socioeconomic condition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case