State of Maharashtra Through Excise Inspector Deori vs Sankar Dhondu Salame — 283/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(f). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 11th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGO040005412025
Filing Number
478/2025
Filing Date
28-Mar-2025
Registration No
283/2025
Registration Date
28-Mar-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Amgaon
Judge
2-JtCivil Judge, Junior Division, & J.m.f.c., Amgaon
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC
Last updated 21-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
152
Police Station
Salekasa
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through Excise Inspector Deori
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sankar Dhondu Salame
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court discharged accused Shankar Dhondu Salame under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case alleging violation of Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The discharge was ordered due to the accused's non-appearance, prosecution's failure to secure his presence, and non-filing of the C.A report despite six months having elapsed, making trial proceedings difficult. The prosecution retains liberty to revive proceedings by showing justifiable grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
JtCivil Judge, Junior Division, & J.m.f.c., Amgaon
-
11-Dec-2025
Awaiting Summons
JtCivil Judge, Junior Division, & J.m.f.c., Amgaon
-
11-Sep-2025
Awaiting Summons
JtCivil Judge, Junior Division, & J.m.f.c., Amgaon
-
19-Jun-2025
Awaiting Summons
JtCivil Judge, Junior Division, & J.m.f.c., Amgaon
-
28-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 283/2025
The court discharged accused Shankar Dhondu Salame under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case alleging violation of Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The discharge was ordered due to the accused's non-appearance, prosecution's failure to secure his presence, and non-filing of the C.A report despite six months having elapsed, making trial proceedings difficult. The prosecution retains liberty to revive proceedings by showing justifiable grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts