THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs TEJALBEN KIRANBHAI THAKOR — 105/2026

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: GJKH110001372026

e-Filing Number

06-01-2026

Filing Number

105/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

105/2026

Registration Date

18-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

671

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.TEJALBEN KIRANBHAI THAKOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Tejalben Kiranbhai Thakor (105/2026) The court convicted the respondent under the Prohibition Act Section 65 for illegal possession of 4 liters of country liquor valued at ₹800. However, considering the respondent's poor economic status, family dependence, and lack of prior criminal record, the court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment until court rising and a fine of ₹200 (instead of the statutory minimum), applying the doctrine of mitigated punishment recognized in established precedents. 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. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 105/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Tejalben Kiranbhai Thakor (105/2026) The court convicted the respondent under the Prohibition Act Section 65 for illegal possession of 4 liters of country liquor valued at ₹800. However, considering the respondent's poor economic status, family dependence, and lack of prior criminal record, the court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment until court rising and a fine of ₹200 (instead of the statutory minimum), applying the doctrine of mitigated punishment recognized in established precedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case