State of Maharashtra vs Viplab Sunil Sen Advocate - R.P.Tembhurne — 55/2018
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)98(k),83. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHGA030000742018
Filing Number
74/2018
Filing Date
16-01-2018
Registration No
55/2018
Registration Date
16-01-2018
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli
Judge
9-Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Gadchiroli.
Decision Date
13th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
6231
Police Station
Gadchiroli
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Viplab Sunil Sen Advocate - R.P.Tembhurne
Sushmita Avinash Chaudhari
Vikas Vimal Mandal
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Gadchiroli.
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 20-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Viplab Sunil Sen Advocate & Others (55/2018) The court acquitted all three defendants (Viplab Sunil Sen, Sushmita Avinash Chaudhari, and Vikas Vimal Mandal) of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition of Illicit Distillation Act, 1949 sections 65(E), 98(K), and 83. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical evidentiary gaps, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and inadequate forensic examination of recovered contraband alcohol, resulting in dismissal of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Viplab Sunil Sen Advocate & Others (55/2018) The court acquitted all three defendants (Viplab Sunil Sen, Sushmita Avinash Chaudhari, and Vikas Vimal Mandal) of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition of Illicit Distillation Act, 1949 sections 65(E), 98(K), and 83. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical evidentiary gaps, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and inadequate forensic examination of recovered contraband alcohol, resulting in dismissal of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts