THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs LILABEN DEVABHAI FATABHAI CHUNARA — 151/2026

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: GJKH110001862026

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

151/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

151/2026

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

5

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.LILABEN DEVABHAI FATABHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary: State of Gujarat v. Lilaben Devabhai Fatabhai Chunara (151/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Section 65(a) of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit liquor. However, considering her status as a poor, first-time offender who supports her family through wage labor, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 200 fine (in lieu of simple imprisonment) rather than the statutory minimum, citing principles of justice and rehabilitation. 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. 151/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: State of Gujarat v. Lilaben Devabhai Fatabhai Chunara (151/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Section 65(a) of the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit liquor. However, considering her status as a poor, first-time offender who supports her family through wage labor, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 200 fine (in lieu of simple imprisonment) rather than the statutory minimum, citing principles of justice and rehabilitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case