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

Case disposed

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

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65 d

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.

11-03-2026

Disposed

13-02-2026

Arguments

17-01-2026

Arguments

27-11-2025

Arguments

01-11-2025

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Deulgaonraja All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case