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
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
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.
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts