State of Maharastra Thr. P. S. Talodhi vs Geeta Devendra Shendre Advocate - Ghutke Anandkumar Raghobaji — 350/2021

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHCH110006382021

Filing Number

580/2021

Filing Date

06-Aug-2021

Registration No

350/2021

Registration Date

06-Aug-2021

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Nagbhid

Judge

1-CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 23-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

74

Police Station

Talodhi

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharastra Thr. P. S. Talodhi

    Adv. A.P.P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Geeta Devendra Shendre Advocate - Ghutke Anandkumar Raghobaji

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment

    Summary of Case 350/2021 The court acquitted the respondent of charges under Maharashtra Excise Act, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused illegally possessed narcotic/liquor materials. The single eyewitness (panchnama witness) provided contradictory testimony and did not support the prosecution's case, and no credible documentary evidence was presented to establish possession of the seized substance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  4. 24-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  8. 11-Dec-2025

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  9. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  10. 17-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  11. 01-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  12. 12-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  13. 31-May-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  14. 29-Apr-2025

    Evidence

  15. 21-Mar-2025

    Evidence

  16. 17-Feb-2025

    Evidence

  17. 03-Feb-2025

    Evidence

  18. 13-Jan-2025

    Evidence

  19. 09-Dec-2024

    Evidence

  20. 18-Nov-2024

    Evidence

  21. 09-Oct-2024

    Evidence

  22. 29-Aug-2024

    Evidence

  23. 31-Jul-2024

    Evidence

  24. 02-Jul-2024

    Evidence

  25. 13-May-2024

    Evidence

  26. 03-Apr-2024

    Evidence

  27. 06-Mar-2024

    Evidence

  28. 12-Feb-2024

    Evidence

  29. 15-Jan-2024

    Evidence

  30. 16-Dec-2023

    Evidence

  31. 20-Nov-2023

    Evidence

  32. 13-Oct-2023

    Evidence

  33. 08-Sep-2023

    Evidence

  34. 08-Aug-2023

    Evidence

  35. 14-Jul-2023

    Evidence

  36. 14-Jul-2023

    Evidence

  37. 09-Jun-2023

    N.B.W._Ready

  38. 26-Apr-2023

    N.B.W._Ready

  39. 08-Mar-2023

    N.B.W._Ready

  40. 08-Mar-2023

    N.B.W._Ready

  41. 16-Jan-2023

    N.B.W._Ready

  42. 03-Dec-2022

    N.B.W._Ready

  43. 06-Oct-2022

    N.B.W._Ready

  44. 11-Aug-2022

    N.B.W._Ready

  45. 25-Jun-2022

    N.B.W._Ready

  46. 15-Jun-2022

    Summons_Ready

  47. 11-Apr-2022

    Summons_Ready

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. And J.M.F.C. Nagbhid.

  48. 07-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 06-Aug-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 350/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 350/2021 The court acquitted the respondent of charges under Maharashtra Excise Act, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused illegally possessed narcotic/liquor materials. The single eyewitness (panchnama witness) provided contradictory testimony and did not support the prosecution's case, and no credible documentary evidence was presented to establish possession of the seized substance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case