The State of Maharashtra vs Kiran Balasaheb Darode Advocate - NIL — 276/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHAH150004462025

Filing Number

446/2025

Filing Date

06-Mar-2025

Registration No

276/2025

Registration Date

06-Mar-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Newasa

Judge

2-2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

263

Police Station

Newasa Police Station Newasa

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kiran Balasaheb Darode Advocate - NIL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court dismissed the criminal proceedings against Kiran Balasaheb Darode under Section 258 of the CrPC and discharged the accused, as the prosecution failed to produce the mandatory chemical analyzer report despite multiple opportunities, making it impossible to proceed with the Section 65(e) Bombay Prohibition Act charge. The seized material was directed for disposal by the Excise Department, with case records preserved for potential reopening. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  4. 13-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  5. 11-Nov-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  6. 17-Jul-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jd JMFC Newasa

  7. 18-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 276/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the criminal proceedings against Kiran Balasaheb Darode under Section 258 of the CrPC and discharged the accused, as the prosecution failed to produce the mandatory chemical analyzer report despite multiple opportunities, making it impossible to proceed with the Section 65(e) Bombay Prohibition Act charge. The seized material was directed for disposal by the Excise Department, with case records preserved for potential reopening. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case