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
17-02-2026
Registration No
96/2026
Registration Date
17-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, KHEDA
Judge
1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
FIR Details
FIR Number
533
Police Station
KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
VIKRAMBHAI KHODABHAI VAGHELA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts