The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj vs Avinash Ghanshyam Ghutake Advocate - Shri.M.R.Shende — 173/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(a),83. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGA050002522025
Filing Number
228/2025
Filing Date
17-Mar-2025
Registration No
173/2025
Registration Date
17-Mar-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Desaiganj
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 29-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
467
Police Station
Desaiganj
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Avinash Ghanshyam Ghutake Advocate - Shri.M.R.Shende
-
2.Nikhil Prabhuji Malgam
Adv. Shri.M.R.Shende
-
3.Mohan Bajirao Pillare
Adv. Shri.M.R.Shende
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of Judgment
Case Summary: 173/2025 Court Decision: The First Class Magistrate Court at Desaiganj acquitted all three accused—Avinash Ghanshyam Ghutake, Nikhil Prabhuji Malgam, and Mohan Bajirao Pillare—of charges under Sections 65(A) and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused illegally possessed and intended to sell 300 bottles (90ml each) of country liquor recovered on December 21, 2024. Key Reasoning: The court found critical gaps in the prosecution's evidence: the two eyewitnesses (Pranay and Anuj) contradicted police claims about witnessing the seizure and signing the recovery memo; the prosecution did not call the person who transported the seized samples to the chemical laboratory, creating doubt about the continuity of evidence; and no clear chain of custody was established linking the seized samples to the chemical analysis report. Without these essential evidentiary links and credible witness testimony, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
-
05-Mar-2026
Judgment
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
-
20-Feb-2026
Arguments
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
-
31-Dec-2025
Arguments
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
-
19-Nov-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
-
25-Aug-2025
Order on Exhibit
-
25-Aug-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
-
29-May-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
-
17-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 173/2025
Case Summary: 173/2025 Court Decision: The First Class Magistrate Court at Desaiganj acquitted all three accused—Avinash Ghanshyam Ghutake, Nikhil Prabhuji Malgam, and Mohan Bajirao Pillare—of charges under Sections 65(A) and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused illegally possessed and intended to sell 300 bottles (90ml each) of country liquor recovered on December 21, 2024. Key Reasoning: The court found critical gaps in the prosecution's evidence: the two eyewitnesses (Pranay and Anuj) contradicted police claims about witnessing the seizure and signing the recovery memo; the prosecution did not call the person who transported the seized samples to the chemical laboratory, creating doubt about the continuity of evidence; and no clear chain of custody was established linking the seized samples to the chemical analysis report. Without these essential evidentiary links and credible witness testimony, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts