THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SUBABEN WO JAYANTIBHAI BHALABHAI CHUNARA — 140/2026

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: GJKH110001752026

e-Filing Number

18-02-2026

Filing Number

140/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

140/2026

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

81

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.SUBABEN WO JAYANTIBHAI BHALABHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: 140/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Subaben Jayantibhai Chunara The court convicted the respondent under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit liquor, but imposed lenient sentencing (₹200 fine instead of statutory punishment) considering her first-time offense, impoverished background, and family dependence on her labor. The court exercised discretionary sentencing authority under established precedents, finding mitigating circumstances warranted reduced punishment while balancing criminal justice objectives. 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. 140/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 140/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Subaben Jayantibhai Chunara The court convicted the respondent under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit liquor, but imposed lenient sentencing (₹200 fine instead of statutory punishment) considering her first-time offense, impoverished background, and family dependence on her labor. The court exercised discretionary sentencing authority under established precedents, finding mitigating circumstances warranted reduced punishment while balancing criminal justice objectives. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case