The State of Maharashtra vs Kalyan Dilip Patil — 121/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 08th April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHDH040005102025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
296/2025
Filing Date
11-09-2025
Registration No
121/2025
Registration Date
11-09-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Dondaicha
Judge
3-Joint Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C., Dondaicha
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
36
Police Station
Dondaicha Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P. for State
Respondent(s)
Kalyan Dilip Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Joint Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C., Dondaicha
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted defendant Kalyan Dilip Patiil of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for illegal possession and sale of foreign and domestic liquor, finding insufficient credible evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The key reasoning was that while police seizure of alcohol bottles was documented, critical evidentiary gaps—including missing chemical analysis reports and inconsistencies in witness testimony—created reasonable doubt about whether the seized bottles were the subject matter of the alleged crime, making conviction unjustifiable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted defendant Kalyan Dilip Patiil of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for illegal possession and sale of foreign and domestic liquor, finding insufficient credible evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The key reasoning was that while police seizure of alcohol bottles was documented, critical evidentiary gaps—including missing chemical analysis reports and inconsistencies in witness testimony—created reasonable doubt about whether the seized bottles were the subject matter of the alleged crime, making conviction unjustifiable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts