State of Maharashtra through, PSO. Ashti vs Kapil Namdev Ataram Advocate - M.D.Sahare — 199/2020
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(K). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGA090003992020
Filing Number
374/2020
Filing Date
07-07-2020
Registration No
199/2020
Registration Date
07-07-2020
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Chamorshi
Judge
10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
145
Police Station
Ashti
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through, PSO. Ashti
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Kapil Namdev Ataram Advocate - M.D.Sahare
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Awaiting Notice
Proclomation
Proclomation
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 12-02-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
| 19-01-2026 | Proclomation |
| 19-12-2025 | Proclomation |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: S.F.M.K. 199/2020 The court acquitted defendant Kapil Namdev Ataram under Section 65(F) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, finding insufficient evidence to prove illegal liquor possession. The prosecution failed to establish its case through independent witnesses, as the two panch witnesses did not adequately cooperate and did not prepare proper panchnama documents. The court held that in the absence of credible corroborating evidence and given reasonable doubts in the prosecution's case, the benefit must go to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: S.F.M.K. 199/2020 The court acquitted defendant Kapil Namdev Ataram under Section 65(F) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, finding insufficient evidence to prove illegal liquor possession. The prosecution failed to establish its case through independent witnesses, as the two panch witnesses did not adequately cooperate and did not prepare proper panchnama documents. The court held that in the absence of credible corroborating evidence and given reasonable doubts in the prosecution's case, the benefit must go to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts