THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs GEETABEN MAHESHBHAI BHAIJIBHAI CHUNARA — 1003/2025

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: GJKH110014012025

e-Filing Number

11-11-2025

Filing Number

1003/2025

Filing Date

25-Nov-2025

Registration No

1003/2025

Registration Date

25-Nov-2025

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 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

551

Police Station

KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GEETABEN MAHESHBHAI BHAIJIBHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 3 liters of country-made liquor worth ₹600. Considering the accused's plea of guilt, his poor economic background, first-time offense, and family responsibilities, the court imposed a lenient sentence of rigorous imprisonment until court rising and a fine of ₹200 (instead of the maximum prescribed punishment), with additional simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. 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

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 12-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 25-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1003/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act for possessing 3 liters of country-made liquor worth ₹600. Considering the accused's plea of guilt, his poor economic background, first-time offense, and family responsibilities, the court imposed a lenient sentence of rigorous imprisonment until court rising and a fine of ₹200 (instead of the maximum prescribed punishment), with additional simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case