The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj vs Prashant Tolaram Meshram Advocate - S.S.Guru — 77/2022
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65,(E). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGA050001062022
Filing Number
99/2022
Filing Date
14-02-2022
Registration No
77/2022
Registration Date
14-02-2022
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Desaiganj
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
0275
Police Station
Desaiganj
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Prashant Tolaram Meshram Advocate - S.S.Guru
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 02-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 01-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 77/2022 Court Decision: The accused, Prashant Tolaram Meshram, was acquitted of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court found critical gaps in the prosecution's evidence chain, including the absence of the complainant's testimony, lack of witness credibility (the sole witness contradicted the prosecution's account), and absence of proper chain of custody documentation for the chemical examination sample, making it impossible to prove the accused possessed illicit liquor for sale. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 77/2022 Court Decision: The accused, Prashant Tolaram Meshram, was acquitted of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court found critical gaps in the prosecution's evidence chain, including the absence of the complainant's testimony, lack of witness credibility (the sole witness contradicted the prosecution's account), and absence of proper chain of custody documentation for the chemical examination sample, making it impossible to prove the accused possessed illicit liquor for sale. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts