State of Maharashtra Through PSO Tirora vs Kavita Rajesh Maladhare Advocate - Bhandarkar P.R. — 34/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGO080000432024
Filing Number
40/2024
Filing Date
06-01-2024
Registration No
34/2024
Registration Date
06-01-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Tirora
Judge
1-Civil Judge Junior Division Tirora
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
1025
Police Station
Police Station Officer Tirora
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through PSO Tirora
Adv. H. G. Nagdeve
Respondent(s)
Kavita Rajesh Maladhare Advocate - Bhandarkar P.R.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Junior Division Tirora
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 09-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 28-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Excise Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt despite recovering 17 liters of illegal liquor valued at ₹1,700. The court held that the independent witness testimony was insufficient, the seizure panchnama lacked proper corroboration, and the prosecution's case was built on weak evidence, thus granting the accused unconditional release under CrPC Section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Excise Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt despite recovering 17 liters of illegal liquor valued at ₹1,700. The court held that the independent witness testimony was insufficient, the seizure panchnama lacked proper corroboration, and the prosecution's case was built on weak evidence, thus granting the accused unconditional release under CrPC Section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts