The State of Maharashtra Excise Department vs Ramesh Ravindra More — 59/2026

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHDH050001842026

Filing Number

143/2026

Filing Date

28-Jan-2026

Registration No

59/2026

Registration Date

28-Jan-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sakri

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Sakri

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

315

Police Station

State Excise Department Dhule 1, Dhule

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra Excise Department

    Adv. A.P.P. for State

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramesh Ravindra More

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court discharged accused Ramesh Ravindra More from charges under Section 65(E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and stopped proceedings under Section 258 CrPC due to absence of critical Chemical Analysis (C.A.) report on record, finding no prima facie case to prove the alleged unauthorized possession of liquor for sale. The court deemed continuing the proceedings with incomplete evidence would constitute an abuse of process, and ordered refund of securities and proper disposal of seized property after the appeal period expires. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Sakri

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Sakri

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Sakri

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 28-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 59/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court discharged accused Ramesh Ravindra More from charges under Section 65(E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and stopped proceedings under Section 258 CrPC due to absence of critical Chemical Analysis (C.A.) report on record, finding no prima facie case to prove the alleged unauthorized possession of liquor for sale. The court deemed continuing the proceedings with incomplete evidence would constitute an abuse of process, and ordered refund of securities and proper disposal of seized property after the appeal period expires. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case