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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH110001902026
e-Filing Number
16-02-2026
Filing Number
155/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
155/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, KHEDA
Judge
1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
FIR Details
FIR Number
26
Police Station
KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
CHAMPABEN WO KANUBHAI SANABHAI CHUNARA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts