State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Mul vs Suresh Lakshman Ganmenwar — 374/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 14th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHCH100006042025
Filing Number
552/2025
Filing Date
19-Jul-2025
Registration No
374/2025
Registration Date
19-Jul-2025
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division , Mul
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Mul
Decision Date
14-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 23-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
197
Police Station
Mul
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Mul
Respondent(s)
-
1.Suresh Lakshman Ganmenwar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-May-2026
Copy of Judgment
Case 374/2025 Summary: The court acquitted Suresh Lakshman Ganmenwar of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition of Liquor Act, Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing 21 bottles of 90ml alcohol for illegal sale. The prosecution's sole witness, the panch witness in the seizure panchnama, provided testimony that failed to establish the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the witness testimony unhelpful to the prosecution and noted insufficient evidence linking the accused to illicit alcohol trafficking at the time of the alleged incident on 17/05/2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-May-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Mul
-
23-Apr-2026
Arguments
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Mul
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Mul
-
08-Jan-2026
Appearance
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Mul
-
17-Nov-2025
Appearance
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Mul
-
16-Sep-2025
Appearance
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Mul
-
25-Jul-2025
Appearance
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Mul
-
19-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 374/2025
Case 374/2025 Summary: The court acquitted Suresh Lakshman Ganmenwar of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition of Liquor Act, Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing 21 bottles of 90ml alcohol for illegal sale. The prosecution's sole witness, the panch witness in the seizure panchnama, provided testimony that failed to establish the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the witness testimony unhelpful to the prosecution and noted insufficient evidence linking the accused to illicit alcohol trafficking at the time of the alleged incident on 17/05/2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts