THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KALUBHAI PRAHLADBHAI RAVAL — 92/2026

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: GJKH110001242026

e-Filing Number

15-12-2025

Filing Number

92/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

92/2026

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

653

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.KALUBHAI PRAHLADBHAI RAVAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: 92/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Kalubhai Prahladbhai Raval The court convicted Kalubhai Prahladbhai Raval under the Prohibition Act for possessing 10 liters of country liquor worth ₹2,000 without authorization. While imposing the statutory sentence, the court exercised discretion to award lenient punishment considering the accused's poor economic status, family dependence, and that this was his first offense, sentencing him to imprisonment with a fine of ₹200 instead of maximum punishment. 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. 92/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 92/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Kalubhai Prahladbhai Raval The court convicted Kalubhai Prahladbhai Raval under the Prohibition Act for possessing 10 liters of country liquor worth ₹2,000 without authorization. While imposing the statutory sentence, the court exercised discretion to award lenient punishment considering the accused's poor economic status, family dependence, and that this was his first offense, sentencing him to imprisonment with a fine of ₹200 instead of maximum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case