THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs CHAMPABEN WO KANUBHAI SANABHAI CHUNARA — 155/2026

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: GJKH110001902026

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

155/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

155/2026

Registration Date

24-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

26

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.CHAMPABEN WO KANUBHAI SANABHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: 155/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Champaben Wo Kanubhai Sanabhai Chunara The court convicted the respondent under the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit alcohol and sentenced her to imprisonment with a fine of ₹200. However, the court reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment (instead of rigorous imprisonment) and imposed a fine of ₹200, considering that the respondent is from a poor, laboring class family and this was her first offense. The court exercised its discretion under sentencing principles to impose lenient punishment rather than the statutory maximum, prioritizing rehabilitation and social welfare considerations. 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. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 155/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 155/2026 - State of Gujarat v. Champaben Wo Kanubhai Sanabhai Chunara The court convicted the respondent under the Prohibition Act for possessing 4 liters of illicit alcohol and sentenced her to imprisonment with a fine of ₹200. However, the court reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment (instead of rigorous imprisonment) and imposed a fine of ₹200, considering that the respondent is from a poor, laboring class family and this was her first offense. The court exercised its discretion under sentencing principles to impose lenient punishment rather than the statutory maximum, prioritizing rehabilitation and social welfare considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case