THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SANJAYBHAI URFE KALIYO SO NATUBHAI NATHABHAI TALPADA — 98/2026

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: GJKH110001302026

e-Filing Number

03-12-2025

Filing Number

98/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

98/2026

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

622

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.SANJAYBHAI URFE KALIYO SO NATUBHAI NATHABHAI TALPADA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 98/2026 The State of Gujarat prosecuted Sanjaybhai Urfe Kaliyo for illegal possession of 12 liters of country-made liquor valued at ₹2,400 under the Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded guilty, claiming he is from a poor family supporting dependents through daily labor, and requested lenient sentencing. The court convicted him under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act but, considering his poverty, first-time offense, and mitigating circumstances, imposed a lighter sentence of ₹200 fine (instead of the statutory maximum) and simple imprisonment, rather than rigorous imprisonment. 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. 98/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 98/2026 The State of Gujarat prosecuted Sanjaybhai Urfe Kaliyo for illegal possession of 12 liters of country-made liquor valued at ₹2,400 under the Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded guilty, claiming he is from a poor family supporting dependents through daily labor, and requested lenient sentencing. The court convicted him under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act but, considering his poverty, first-time offense, and mitigating circumstances, imposed a lighter sentence of ₹200 fine (instead of the statutory maximum) and simple imprisonment, rather than rigorous imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case