State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Gadchiroli vs Umakant Vitthal Shivankar Advocate - P.P.Bhoyar — 161/2021
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHGA030003252021
Filing Number
325/2021
Filing Date
03-06-2021
Registration No
161/2021
Registration Date
03-06-2021
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli
Judge
9-Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Gadchiroli.
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
19
Police Station
Gadchiroli
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Gadchiroli
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Umakant Vitthal Shivankar Advocate - P.P.Bhoyar
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Gadchiroli.
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 16-02-2026 | Judgment |
| 03-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted the accused, Umakant Vitthal Shivankar, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution's witnesses provided contradictory and unreliable testimony regarding the alleged seizure of illicit liquor, and critical procedural irregularities undermined the credibility of the evidence, particularly regarding the chain of custody and proper documentation of the seized items. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted the accused, Umakant Vitthal Shivankar, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution's witnesses provided contradictory and unreliable testimony regarding the alleged seizure of illicit liquor, and critical procedural irregularities undermined the credibility of the evidence, particularly regarding the chain of custody and proper documentation of the seized items. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts