State of Maharashtra Through PSO Salekasa vs Chamru Lodhi Bhalawi Advocate - Nagpure U.B. — 306/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(1),b,c,d,f,65e. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 08th May 2026.

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

CNR: MHGO040006052025

Case disposed

Filing Number

537/2025

Filing Date

05-04-2025

Registration No

306/2025

Registration Date

05-04-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Amgaon

Judge

2-JtCivil Judge, Junior Division, & J.M.F.C., Amgaon

Decision Date

08th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

388

Police Station

Salekasa

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(1),b,c,d,f,65e

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra Through PSO Salekasa

Adv. App

Respondent(s)

Chamru Lodhi Bhalawi Advocate - Nagpure U.B.

Hearing History

Judge: 2-JtCivil Judge, Junior Division, & J.M.F.C., Amgaon

08-05-2026

Disposed

18-04-2026

Arguments

11-03-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

12-02-2026

Evidence

18-12-2025

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

08-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

SUMMARY: The court acquitted the accused, Chamru Lodhi Bhilawi, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E)(B)(K)(D)(F) for alleged illegal possession and sale of liquor and raw materials. The judge found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the sole prosecution witness (a police panchanama witness) admitted he was not given written notice for the panchanama, had not read it, and maintained regular contact with police as a committee member, raising credibility concerns. The court ordered the confiscated liquor destroyed and directed the accused to comply with Indian Penal Code Section 481-A requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The court acquitted the accused, Chamru Lodhi Bhilawi, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E)(B)(K)(D)(F) for alleged illegal possession and sale of liquor and raw materials. The judge found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the sole prosecution witness (a police panchanama witness) admitted he was not given written notice for the panchanama, had not read it, and maintained regular contact with police as a committee member, raising credibility concerns. The court ordered the confiscated liquor destroyed and directed the accused to comply with Indian Penal Code Section 481-A requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Amgaon All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case