THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs HANSABEN CHANDUBHAI BACHUBHAI CHUNARA — 83/2026

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: GJKH110001152026

e-Filing Number

06-01-2026

Filing Number

83/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

83/2026

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

697

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.HANSABEN CHANDUBHAI BACHUBHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary: Case 83/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Hansaben Chandubhai Bachubhai Chunara The court convicted Hansaben under the Prohibition Act Section 65 for possessing 3 liters of illicit liquor valued at ₹600. However, considering her first offense, poor economic background, and family dependence, the court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment up to the period already served plus a fine of ₹200, rather than the statutory maximum, finding special and adequate reasons to warrant leniency in the interests of justice. 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. 83/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Case 83/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Hansaben Chandubhai Bachubhai Chunara The court convicted Hansaben under the Prohibition Act Section 65 for possessing 3 liters of illicit liquor valued at ₹600. However, considering her first offense, poor economic background, and family dependence, the court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment up to the period already served plus a fine of ₹200, rather than the statutory maximum, finding special and adequate reasons to warrant leniency in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case