The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj vs Devrao Rambhau Bodele Advocate - S.S.Guru — 32/2021
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGA050000592021
Filing Number
51/2021
Filing Date
29-01-2021
Registration No
32/2021
Registration Date
29-01-2021
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Desaiganj
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
440
Police Station
Desaiganj
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Devrao Rambhau Bodele Advocate - S.S.Guru
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: The State of Maharashtra v. Devrao Rambhau Bodele (Case 32/2021) The court acquitted the defendant Devrao Rambhau Bodele of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed 15 bottles of illicit country liquor (90ml each) for sale. Key evidentiary gaps included: witness testimonies showing insufficient procedural compliance during the seizure, lack of proper chain of custody documentation for chemical analysis samples, and the prosecution's failure to examine the police officer or the evidence custodian regarding sample handling. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable to secure conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The State of Maharashtra v. Devrao Rambhau Bodele (Case 32/2021) The court acquitted the defendant Devrao Rambhau Bodele of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed 15 bottles of illicit country liquor (90ml each) for sale. Key evidentiary gaps included: witness testimonies showing insufficient procedural compliance during the seizure, lack of proper chain of custody documentation for chemical analysis samples, and the prosecution's failure to examine the police officer or the evidence custodian regarding sample handling. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable to secure conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts