THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs VIKRAMBHAI KHODABHAI VAGHELA — 96/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH110001282026
e-Filing Number
11-11-2025
Filing Number
96/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
96/2026
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
533
Police Station
KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
-
1.VIKRAMBHAI KHODABHAI VAGHELA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Vikrambhai Khodabhai Vaghela (96/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit liquor worth ₹800 on October 5, 2025. The respondent pleaded guilty and requested lenient punishment, citing that he is from a poor, laboring class supporting a dependent family. The court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment until the date of judgment, a fine of ₹200, with the provision that if the fine remains unpaid, he shall undergo five additional days of simple imprisonment. The court applied sentencing discretion to impose a lighter punishment than statutory limits, considering the respondent's socio-economic circumstances and first-time offense status, in furtherance of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
12-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 96/2026
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Vikrambhai Khodabhai Vaghela (96/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit liquor worth ₹800 on October 5, 2025. The respondent pleaded guilty and requested lenient punishment, citing that he is from a poor, laboring class supporting a dependent family. The court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment until the date of judgment, a fine of ₹200, with the provision that if the fine remains unpaid, he shall undergo five additional days of simple imprisonment. The court applied sentencing discretion to impose a lighter punishment than statutory limits, considering the respondent's socio-economic circumstances and first-time offense status, in furtherance of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts