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.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHDH050001842026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
143/2026
Filing Date
28-01-2026
Registration No
59/2026
Registration Date
28-01-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Sakri
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Sakri
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
315
Police Station
State Excise Department Dhule 1, Dhule
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra Excise Department
Adv. A.P.P. for State
Respondent(s)
Ramesh Ravindra More
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Sakri
Disposed
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons | |
| 09-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons | |
| 28-01-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts