State of Maharashtra, Thru Police Station Andhera vs Mukinda Suresh Salve Advocate - Thumake NR — 484/2023
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65 d. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHBU150008732023
Filing Number
726/2023
Filing Date
06-11-2023
Registration No
484/2023
Registration Date
06-11-2023
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
287
Police Station
Deulgaon Raja
Year
2023
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
Summary: The court acquitted accused Mukinda Suresh Salve of charges under the Mumbai Prohibition Act for alleged illegal possession of 5 liters of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence—specifically, the chemical analysis report of the seized liquor was not produced, and critical procedural documentation was missing. Without these essential elements, the prosecution could not conclusively prove the accused possessed illicit alcohol, warranting acquittal under CrPC Section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court acquitted accused Mukinda Suresh Salve of charges under the Mumbai Prohibition Act for alleged illegal possession of 5 liters of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence—specifically, the chemical analysis report of the seized liquor was not produced, and critical procedural documentation was missing. Without these essential elements, the prosecution could not conclusively prove the accused possessed illicit alcohol, warranting acquittal under CrPC Section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts