The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Desaiganj vs Gopika Rajendra Suryavanshi Advocate - Shri.M.R.Shende — 330/2022

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65,(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHGA050005052022

Filing Number

462/2022

Filing Date

21-Jul-2022

Registration No

330/2022

Registration Date

21-Jul-2022

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

0652

Police Station

Desaiganj

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65,(e)

Petitioner(s)

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

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Gopika Rajendra Suryavanshi Advocate - Shri.M.R.Shende

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment

    Case Summary: 330/2022 The State of Maharashtra v. Gopika Rajendra Suryavanshi Decision: The accused, Gopika Rajendra Suryavanshi, was acquitted of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to establish that the accused unlawfully possessed ten bottles (90ml each) of country liquor for sale. Critical evidentiary gaps included: the sole witness was unreliable and showed contradictions; the complainant's statement was not recorded; the chain of custody for chemical analysis samples was not clearly established; and no witness testified regarding the transfer of seized samples to the chemical laboratory. Without proper chain of custody and independent corroboration, the prosecution could not prove the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Judgment

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

  5. 21-Feb-2026

    Arguments

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

  6. 03-Feb-2026

    Arguments

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

  7. 15-Jan-2026

    Arguments

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

  8. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

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

  9. 01-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

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

  10. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

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

  11. 05-Jun-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

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

  12. 17-Mar-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

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

  13. 31-Jan-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

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

  14. 21-Nov-2024

    Evidence

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

  15. 31-Aug-2024

    Evidence

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

  16. 20-Jun-2024

    Evidence

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

  17. 05-Apr-2024

    Evidence

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

  18. 28-Nov-2023

    Evidence

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

  19. 29-Aug-2023

    Plea / Particulars

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

  20. 14-Jun-2023

    Plea / Particulars

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

  21. 13-Apr-2023

    Plea / Particulars

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

  22. 16-Jan-2023

    Appearance

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

  23. 18-Oct-2022

    Appearance

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

  24. 21-Jul-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 21-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 330/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 330/2022 The State of Maharashtra v. Gopika Rajendra Suryavanshi Decision: The accused, Gopika Rajendra Suryavanshi, was acquitted of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to establish that the accused unlawfully possessed ten bottles (90ml each) of country liquor for sale. Critical evidentiary gaps included: the sole witness was unreliable and showed contradictions; the complainant's statement was not recorded; the chain of custody for chemical analysis samples was not clearly established; and no witness testified regarding the transfer of seized samples to the chemical laboratory. Without proper chain of custody and independent corroboration, the prosecution could not prove the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case