The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj vs Arati Nandeshward Neware Advocate - S.S.Guru — 111/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 28th May 2026.

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHGA050001832025

Case disposed

Filing Number

161/2025

Filing Date

10-03-2025

Registration No

111/2025

Registration Date

10-03-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Desaiganj

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.

Decision Date

28th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

409

Police Station

Desaiganj

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Arati Nandeshward Neware Advocate - S.S.Guru

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.

28-05-2026

Disposed

06-05-2026

Judgment

13-04-2026

Arguments

12-03-2026

Evidence Part Heard

09-01-2026

Evidence Part Heard

Final Orders / Judgements

28-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Arati Nandeshward Neware Case No. 111/2025 | Decision Date: 28/05/2026 The court acquitted the accused Arati Nandeshward Neware of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove that she illegally possessed 15 liters of country liquor for sale without permit. The sole witness testified he did not know the accused and had no direct knowledge of the alleged offense; the prosecution did not examine the informant or submit the seizure panchnama evidence. Additionally, the chemical analysis report lacked chain-of-custody documentation establishing the seized sample's integrity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Arati Nandeshward Neware Case No. 111/2025 | Decision Date: 28/05/2026 The court acquitted the accused Arati Nandeshward Neware of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove that she illegally possessed 15 liters of country liquor for sale without permit. The sole witness testified he did not know the accused and had no direct knowledge of the alleged offense; the prosecution did not examine the informant or submit the seizure panchnama evidence. Additionally, the chemical analysis report lacked chain-of-custody documentation establishing the seized sample's integrity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court, Desaiganj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case