THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs CHAMPABEN VITHHALBHAI BHEMABHAI CHUNARA — 87/2026

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: GJKH110001192026

e-Filing Number

06-01-2026

Filing Number

87/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

87/2026

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

721

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.CHAMPABEN VITHHALBHAI BHEMABHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: 87/2026 The State of Gujarat prosecuted Champaben Vithhalbhai Bhemabhai Chunara under the Prohibition Act for possessing 2 liters of illicit liquor valued at ₹400. The defendant pleaded guilty, citing poverty and family responsibilities as mitigating circumstances, seeking lenient sentencing. The court convicted her under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act but imposed a reduced sentence of ₹200 fine instead of the statutory maximum, considering her economic hardship, first-time offense status, and genuine remorse—applying judicial discretion to balance statutory penalties with equitable justice principles. 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. 87/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 87/2026 The State of Gujarat prosecuted Champaben Vithhalbhai Bhemabhai Chunara under the Prohibition Act for possessing 2 liters of illicit liquor valued at ₹400. The defendant pleaded guilty, citing poverty and family responsibilities as mitigating circumstances, seeking lenient sentencing. The court convicted her under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act but imposed a reduced sentence of ₹200 fine instead of the statutory maximum, considering her economic hardship, first-time offense status, and genuine remorse—applying judicial discretion to balance statutory penalties with equitable justice principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case