THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DILIPBHAI BHIKHABHAI VAGHELA — 139/2026

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: GJKH110001742026

e-Filing Number

31-01-2026

Filing Number

139/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

139/2026

Registration Date

23-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

51

Police Station

KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DILIPBHAI BHIKHABHAI VAGHELA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Bhikhabhai Vaghela (139/2026) The court convicted the accused under Section 65(a) of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit liquor on 24.01.2026. The accused pleaded guilty, invoking his status as a poor, working-class family man supporting dependents, and requested lenient sentencing. The court sentenced him to simple imprisonment until trial completion plus a fine of ₹200, imposing lenient punishment below statutory minimums considering his genuine circumstances and first-time offense. 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. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 139/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Bhikhabhai Vaghela (139/2026) The court convicted the accused under Section 65(a) of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit liquor on 24.01.2026. The accused pleaded guilty, invoking his status as a poor, working-class family man supporting dependents, and requested lenient sentencing. The court sentenced him to simple imprisonment until trial completion plus a fine of ₹200, imposing lenient punishment below statutory minimums considering his genuine circumstances and first-time offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case