THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KANTABEN DILIPBHAI CHUNARA — 120/2026

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: GJKH110001542026

e-Filing Number

08-12-2025

Filing Number

120/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

120/2026

Registration Date

20-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

581

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.KANTABEN DILIPBHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kantaben Dilipbhai Chunara (120/2026) Kantaben was charged under the Prohibition Act for possessing 5 liters of country liquor worth ₹1,000 found during a police check. She pleaded guilty and requested lenient sentencing, citing her poverty, family responsibilities, and that this was her first offense. The court convicted her under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act but imposed a reduced sentence of imprisonment (till conviction) and ₹200 fine instead of the statutory maximum, considering her socioeconomic circumstances and genuine remorse. 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. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 120/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kantaben Dilipbhai Chunara (120/2026) Kantaben was charged under the Prohibition Act for possessing 5 liters of country liquor worth ₹1,000 found during a police check. She pleaded guilty and requested lenient sentencing, citing her poverty, family responsibilities, and that this was her first offense. The court convicted her under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act but imposed a reduced sentence of imprisonment (till conviction) and ₹200 fine instead of the statutory maximum, considering her socioeconomic circumstances and genuine remorse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case