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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH110001302026
e-Filing Number
03-12-2025
Filing Number
98/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
98/2026
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
622
Police Station
KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
SANJAYBHAI URFE KALIYO SO NATUBHAI NATHABHAI TALPADA
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: 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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts