THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ATULKUMAR DIPAKBHAI VAGHESHWARI VADGARI — 85/2026

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: GJKH110001172026

e-Filing Number

15-12-2025

Filing Number

85/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

85/2026

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

654

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.ATULKUMAR DIPAKBHAI VAGHESHWARI VADGARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case 85/2026 Summary: The court convicted respondent Atulkumar Dipakbhai Vagheshwari Vadgari under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possession of 5 liters of illegal liquor valued at ₹1,000, seized during a police check. However, considering mitigating factors—that this was his first offense, he comes from a poor laboring family, and he supports his family through manual work—the court imposed lenient punishment: a fine of ₹200 instead of the statutory maximum, with 5 days simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. 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. 85/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 85/2026 Summary: The court convicted respondent Atulkumar Dipakbhai Vagheshwari Vadgari under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possession of 5 liters of illegal liquor valued at ₹1,000, seized during a police check. However, considering mitigating factors—that this was his first offense, he comes from a poor laboring family, and he supports his family through manual work—the court imposed lenient punishment: a fine of ₹200 instead of the statutory maximum, with 5 days simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case