The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj vs Vasudeo Shamrao Raut Advocate - S.S.Guru — 265/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(f). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGA050003542025
Filing Number
330/2025
Filing Date
29-03-2025
Registration No
265/2025
Registration Date
29-03-2025
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
452
Police Station
Desaiganj
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Vasudeo Shamrao Raut Advocate - S.S.Guru
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 03-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 04-09-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 265/2025 Decision: The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Desaiganj acquitted accused Vasudeo Shamrao Raut of charges under Section 65(F) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused illegally possessed 100 kilos of country liquor for sale. Key Reasoning: The court found critical evidentiary gaps: witness panchnamas (verification documents) lacked proper credibility, the chemical analysis report's chain of custody was unclear, and no witness testified about transporting samples to the laboratory. The prosecution's witnesses contradicted themselves regarding the accused's involvement in the confiscation process, undermining the case's foundation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 265/2025 Decision: The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Desaiganj acquitted accused Vasudeo Shamrao Raut of charges under Section 65(F) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused illegally possessed 100 kilos of country liquor for sale. Key Reasoning: The court found critical evidentiary gaps: witness panchnamas (verification documents) lacked proper credibility, the chemical analysis report's chain of custody was unclear, and no witness testified about transporting samples to the laboratory. The prosecution's witnesses contradicted themselves regarding the accused's involvement in the confiscation process, undermining the case's foundation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts