State of Maharashtra, Thru Police Station Andhera vs Mukinda Suresh Salve Advocate - Thumake NR — 142/2022
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65 D. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHBU150006462022
Filing Number
539/2022
Filing Date
25-07-2022
Registration No
142/2022
Registration Date
25-07-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Deulgaonraja
Judge
2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. J.M.F.C.
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
344
Police Station
Andhera
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra, Thru Police Station Andhera
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Mukinda Suresh Salve Advocate - Thumake NR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. J.M.F.C.
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-11-2025 | Arguments |
| 01-11-2025 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused Mukinda Suresh Salve of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(D), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 5 liters of illicit liquor were in his possession. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no independent witnesses testified, only panchas (witnesses to seizure) were examined without supporting the prosecution, no chemical analysis report was filed, and no questions about illegal sale were posed to witnesses. The court concluded the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused Mukinda Suresh Salve of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(D), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 5 liters of illicit liquor were in his possession. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no independent witnesses testified, only panchas (witnesses to seizure) were examined without supporting the prosecution, no chemical analysis report was filed, and no questions about illegal sale were posed to witnesses. The court concluded the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts