THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs VIJUBEN KANTIBHAI SHANAKARBHAI CHUNARA — 150/2026

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: GJKH110001852026

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

150/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

150/2026

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

34

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.VIJUBEN KANTIBHAI SHANAKARBHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    The court convicted the respondent Vijuben Kantibhai Shanakarbhai Chunara under the Prohibition Act for possessing 10 liters of illegal liquor worth Rs. 2,000. While sentencing, the magistrate exercised discretionary leniency by imposing a reduced sentence of conviction and Rs. 200 fine (instead of the statutory maximum) considering the accused's poor economic status, family dependence, and this being a first offense, thereby prioritizing rehabilitation over stringent punishment. 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. 150/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the respondent Vijuben Kantibhai Shanakarbhai Chunara under the Prohibition Act for possessing 10 liters of illegal liquor worth Rs. 2,000. While sentencing, the magistrate exercised discretionary leniency by imposing a reduced sentence of conviction and Rs. 200 fine (instead of the statutory maximum) considering the accused's poor economic status, family dependence, and this being a first offense, thereby prioritizing rehabilitation over stringent punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case