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

Case disposed

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

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(e)

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

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

08-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Dondaicha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case