STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs Archana Ankush Gaikwad Advocate - Telgad N.S. — 1039/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(ई). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHBI090015492024
Filing Number
1547/2024
Filing Date
17-10-2024
Registration No
1039/2024
Registration Date
17-10-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Majalgaon
Judge
4-JOINT JMFC, MAJALGAON.
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
41
Police Station
Dindrud Police Station.
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Archana Ankush Gaikwad Advocate - Telgad N.S.
Hearing History
Judge: 4-JOINT JMFC, MAJALGAON.
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon acquitted the accused under the Mumbai Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical procedural failures, including the prosecution presenting only one witness, failing to properly examine the investigating officer and other police witnesses, and not following mandatory procedural requirements under CrPC Section 313. The accused was ordered released on personal bond of Rs. 15,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon acquitted the accused under the Mumbai Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical procedural failures, including the prosecution presenting only one witness, failing to properly examine the investigating officer and other police witnesses, and not following mandatory procedural requirements under CrPC Section 313. The accused was ordered released on personal bond of Rs. 15,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts