THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs LILABEN VIJAYBHAI CHUNARA — 122/2026

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: GJKH110001562026

e-Filing Number

08-12-2025

Filing Number

122/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

122/2026

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

582

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.LILABEN VIJAYBHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Lilaben Vijaybhai Chunara (122/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act for possessing 5 liters of illicit liquor valued at ₹1,000. The respondent pleaded guilty and requested a lenient sentence, citing her status as a poor, family-dependent woman earning through daily labor. The court imposed a fine of ₹200 and 5 days simple imprisonment instead of the statutory minimum, exercising discretion under established sentencing principles due to her mitigating circumstances. 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. 122/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Lilaben Vijaybhai Chunara (122/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act for possessing 5 liters of illicit liquor valued at ₹1,000. The respondent pleaded guilty and requested a lenient sentence, citing her status as a poor, family-dependent woman earning through daily labor. The court imposed a fine of ₹200 and 5 days simple imprisonment instead of the statutory minimum, exercising discretion under established sentencing principles due to her mitigating circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case