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
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
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
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts