The State of Maharashtra nijampur vs Ravindra Chabulal Kale — 67/2026

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: MHDH050002162026

Filing Number

172/2026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

67/2026

Registration Date

05-Feb-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

224

Police Station

Nizampur

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra nijampur

    Adv. A.P.P. for State

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ravindra Chabulal Kale

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary The court discharged accused Ravindra Chabulal Kale of charges under Section 65(E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and stopped proceedings under Section 258 CrPC. The court found that critical material evidence—the Chemical Analysis (C.A.) Report—was missing from the case file, making it impossible to establish prima facie that the accused committed the alleged offense of possessing unauthorized liquor for sale. Continuing the proceedings without essential evidence would constitute an abuse of the court's process. 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. 05-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 67/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court discharged accused Ravindra Chabulal Kale of charges under Section 65(E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and stopped proceedings under Section 258 CrPC. The court found that critical material evidence—the Chemical Analysis (C.A.) Report—was missing from the case file, making it impossible to establish prima facie that the accused committed the alleged offense of possessing unauthorized liquor for sale. Continuing the proceedings without essential evidence would constitute an abuse of the court's process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case